HEATHEN HEBREW LANGUAGE

The form ‘rirO‘Cr, 7 ~ l Jin Jer. 486-for which I B N A Q read 7 31f: (yapap [B 2). 311, q o p ~ p[Ll). The clan is called the
l i l t (implied in &os dypios)-is most naturally explaineil as a Heberites in Nu. 2645 (’??n?; ,yoPfp(f)L [BAFLI). Jastrow
‘broken plural’ of ‘ar‘rirl (Hitz. 3es. 201, Lag. Sem. 130). connects this name with the Habiri of the Amarna tablets (cp
Barth’s view of it as a sing. adjectival form (NB 160) is lesi his view on MALCHIEL, g.v.);”Jh’L11 n n s 1 2 6 1 s ; so also
likely. ‘Tamarisk’ is the rendering of I B N A Q in Jer. 176 Hommel, ANT, 235 260 n. This is problemat?lcal. See ASHER.
,(bypropupiq [BRAQ]), of Aq. in Jer.176 (in 486 p ~ p k q )and A clan in Judah
Tudah, the ‘father’ of Socoh ( I Ch. 4 IE
of Vg. ; Tg. has in the former place Nnqi,y= ( T K ~ A U ~ O‘ edible
F Qpfp
apep sek SOCOH,
[AL]):1 See SOCOH, I .
thistle ‘ but in the other takes * Z Y ~ Z Yto be a proper Aame (so A Benjamite (I Ch. 8 17 ; a s a p [BA], a,%p [Ll).
Sym. A p q p ) ; Pesh. simply renders by ‘ root ’ in both places. I Ch. 5 n.
13. See EBER ((3).
Q).

T h e plant intended i s almost certainly a juniper, as I Ch. 8 2

22.
;. See E BER G).
(4).
Lk. 3 35. See EBER (I). s.
that is the meaning of Ar. ‘ a y e & + , the most likely
and
sort is, according t o Tristram ( N H B 358), the /uni- HEBREW LANGUAGE.a T h e name Hebrew (Lat.
gems Sudina L., or Savin. This tree abounds o n the He6raw; Gr. EBPAIOC) is a transcription of ‘ebrriyi,
rocks above Petra, where as Robinson (BR2 5 0 6 ) says, 1,Name the Aramaic equivalent of the original O T
it grows t o the height of I O or 15 feet, and hangs upon Hebrew. word ’l?&’,‘i6ri, pl. ‘zdvim, which is the
t h e rocks even to t h e summit of the cliffs and needles. proper gentilic name of the people who also
Its gloomy stunted appearance, with its scale-like leavesbore the collective name of Israel or Children of Israel
pressed close to its gnarled stem, and cropped close by the wild
( B n & Israel). The name of Israel with its sacred
goats, qives great force to the contrast suggested by the
associations in t h e patriarchal history is that b y which
Tristram adds ‘There is no true heath in Palestine
B“,”fh;ie Lower Lebanoi.’ Hooker states that this particular the OT writers prefer to designate their nation ; and
plant is still called ‘ar‘ar by the Arabs. See also AROER. this circumstance, combined with the fact that the term
[The ‘ar‘dr, or juniper, has been found in I S. 20 19 f: 41
Hebrews is frequently employed where foreigners a r e
(crit. emend.), where David is said to have sat down hesid;
a juniper tree, while Jonathan shot arrows at three prominent iiitr-oduced as speaking or spoken to (e.g., Ex.26 I S.
rocks near. The passage gains in picturesqueness. (nix D p x n4 6 9 Gen. 4 0 1 5 Ex. 318), has led t o the conjecture that
’ i n w. 20 should be n?f ; 8% was originally n w , and intendedthe name of Hebrews (men from the other side, scM of
as a correction of p i n ; see Che. Crif. Bib. and cp &EL.)] the Euphrates) was originally given to the descendants
of Abraham b y their Canaanite neighbours, and con-
N. M.
HEATHEN (D!\8 ; E ~ N H ) . Therendering is plainly tinued to be the usual designation of the Israelites among
wrong i n AV of Lev. 2544 2 6 4 5 , but is admissible when foreigners, just as the Magyars are known t o other
g@im or Pevq is used of nations whose religion is Europeans as Hungarians (foreigners), a s we call the
neither Jewish, nor Jewish-Christian, nor Christian, High-Dutch Germans (warriors), or as t h e Greeks gave
with consciousness of this fact. the name of Phcenicians to the people that called them-
Cp Sanderson (1627), ‘ Abimelech, an heathen-man, who hd: selves Canaanites.3 A closer view of the case, does not
not the knowledge of the true God of heaven to direct him .
confirm this conjecture.
Caxton, Pref. to Malory’s A r f h u r(I&), ‘in a1 places crystei [Stade’s theory however,-that the Israelites were called
and hethen.’ Possibly the Gothic original of ‘heathen’may he Hebrews, after th8ir passage of the Jordan, in contradistinction
traced to Armenian hef‘anos, an adaptation of Gk. &os though to the other West- Jordanic peoples, though connected with a
tile stem-vowel seems to have been assimilated to Gotkc haipi historical theory not borne out by the (later) Israelite tradition
‘heath’ (Murray, New Bng. Dict.). See GENTILE,5 2. -is still maintained by its author, Akad. Reden, ’gy, p IIO. As
HEAVEN. O n the various Hebrew conceptions of a to the Habiri of Am. Tal, Wi. (Kohut MemorialSfudzes, 6 0 4 3 : ’
cp G l i 1 n f i ) defends ;he view that the people so-called a d
heaven as the abode of supernatural beings and (later) nomads from the other side of the Jordan, such as the Suti or
of the risen dead, see ESCHATOLOGY, a n d c p EARTH pre-Aramaic Bedawins,of the Syrian desert. These nomads were
AND WORLD, EARTH [FOUR QUARTERS], PARADISE. the earZier ‘Hebrews. But cp Hommel, A R T , 2 3 0 8 , z-jSfl]
Nor has the word Hebrew been hitherto found in the early
The usual Hebrew term is D;p$ blur., not dual ;I o;pavds),monuments of other Eastern nations [unless indeed the Habiri
but ‘heaven’ is used also by AV to render sJh>Ps. 77 18 [19] of the Am. Tab., who give such trouble to Abd-biba of Jeru-
salem, may be identified with the Hebrews-a theory which in
(RV, whirlwind,’ see WINDS), and Pn@ Ps.‘896 [7] 37 [38] its newer form deserves consideration]. The identification pro-
posed by Chabas which finds the Hebrews in the hieroglyphic
(KV ‘sky’). In the N T besides ohpau6s and & o u p i v ~ o s the
only feature which calls for remark is the reference to a belief in
Apuriu is more than doubtful,4 whereas the name of Israel
appears on the stone of Mesha, king of Moab (Z. 7), and perhaps
a plurality of heavens (& h u p d v i a , Eph. 1 3 20 26 3 IO, etc.),
probably due to Persian influence ; see especially Charles, has been deciphered on Assyrian monuments.5 [On the occIIr-
S e w e t s of Enoch, xxx-xlvii. rence of this name in an old Egyptian inscription, see E XODUS
i., P§ 2, 9.1
HEAVENLY BODIES (CTOIXEIA), 2 Pet. 3 IO 12 The form ‘idri is, in the language of Semitic gram-
RVmg. See ELEMENTS, 2. marians, a relative noun, presupposing the word ‘Eber
HEAVE OFFERING ( 3 r p V 3 “17 a s the name of the tribe, place, or common ancestor,
; A ~ A I ~ ~; M A
p i m i f i e ; Ex.2927, etc.). See S ACRIFICE, a n d c p from whom the Hebrews are designated. See EBBR.
TAXATION AND TRIBUTE. Accordingly we find Eber as a nation side by side with Assyria
in the ohscure poetical passage Nu. 24 24, and Eber as ancestor
HEBEL (\an),Josh. 1 9 2 9 RVmS See AHLAB, n. of the Hebrews in the genealogical lists of Gen. IOJ: Here we
must distinguish two records.6 According to Gen. 11 (and Gen.
1024) Eber is the great-grandson of Shem through Arphaxad
HEBER (Tan, but 7an in Nu. 2 6 4 5 ; X A B E ~[BAL] ; and the ancestor of Terah through Peleg Reu Serug and Nahor:
see N AMES, 70). These are not to be taken as the names bf indhdual men.
.
I. The husband of J AEL (p.. ), a n d head of a Kenite
Several of them are designations of places or districts near the
upper waters of the Euphrates and the Tigris, and among other
sept which separated from the main body of the tribe circumstances the place at the head of the series assigned to the
(see KENITES), and in the course of its nomadic wander- district of An-apachitis (see, however, ARPHAXAD), through
ings went as far north a s a certain sacred tree near which a migration from Ararat to the lands occupied by the
Semites in historical times would first pass, suggests the prob-
Kedesh (see ZAANAIM, THE P L A I N O F ) ; Judg. 411 (or ability that the genealogy is not even meant to exhibit a table
rXTulov [B]) 17 2 1 . In Judg. 5 2 4 ( x d + [A]) he has
been introduced b y a glossator. W M M ( A s . u. Bur. 1 For these forms we may compare the way in which the river
174,c p 193)connects $ 3 , ~with Kina, mentioned in the 7\3Qis in one place transliterated ,yapwp and in another apop.
Pap. Anastasi, and apparently s i d e d E. of Megiddo 2 Hebrew literatwe is dealt with in the following articles:-
(see Jensen, Z A 10355f., and cp AMALEK). T h u s P OETICAL LIT. HISTORICAL LIT., P ROPHETICAL LIT., L AW
LIT., WISOOMIT., E PISTOLARY LIT. On the labours of the
there is an apparent coincidence between Heber of Masoretes see WRITING, TEXT.
K i n a , a n d the eponym of the neighbouring tribe of 3 See especially Ces. Gesch. der hed. Sprache u.Schri& 9,C ;
Ash$ (see 2 below).. See ENGANNIM, JETHRO. more recently Kautzsch in Riehm’s HWB.
2 . The eponym of an Asherite clan ; Gen. 46 17 (P) (,yopop
4 See EGYPT, $ 6 1 ; EPHRAIM, B I.
6 Schr., KG359 536(‘78), defends this not undisputed reading;
[AI, -@oh[DI, -pop [L]); Nu. 2645 (,yopep [BAFLI); and I Ch. cp AHAB § 4.
6 See b e Goeje in 2%. T,’70,p. 243 ; and We. in /ah?-66.
1 Of the formja‘dZiZ(\Vright’s Arab. Gram., 5 305). J: 17.TheoZ., ’76, p. 395.
1983 1984
 HEBREW LANGUAGE
of ethnological affinities, but rather. presents a geographical
sketch of the supposed early movements of the Hehrews who
are personified under the name of Eher. If this is so, wk can
hardly venture to assert (with some scholars) that the author of
the list (the Priestly Writer) extended the name of Hehrews to
all descendants of Terah.1
The case is different with another (doubtless older) record of ?=Heh.-Ass. +-;
which a fragment seems to be preserved in Gen. 1021 25-30.
Here there is no intermediate link between Shem and Eber.
Sons of Shem and sons of Eher appear to be co-extensive ideas,
and to the latter are reckoned not only the descendants of Peleg
(Aramzeans, Israelites, Ishmaelite Arabs, etc.), hut also the
South Arabian tribes of Joktan.
As to the etymological origin of the name of Hebrews
we have an early statement in Gen. 1413, where BADL Derivation from the roots and inflection proceed partly
renders ‘ Abram the Hebrew ’ [see Di.] by 6 ?rep&mp,
‘ the crosser. ’
Grammatically more accurate while resting on the same ety-
mology is the rendering of A q h a & m p p a l ~ ~‘the
p man from
the oth’er side’ of the Euphrates, khich is thb explanation of
Jewish tradition (Ber. R.,and Rashi); cp Ew. GIP) 1407s by modifications of the vowels with which the radicals
( E T 1284).
StLiner, however, ‘takes *&ev in the Arabic sense of a river
hank and makes the Hebrews ‘dwellers in a land of rivers’
(I3idLe.r. 26r3). rhis goes well with Peleg (watercourse) as
i n Arabia we have the district Falag so named because ii is
furrowed by waters (Sprenger, Geog. Ara6. 234). Cp EBER.
By the Hebrew language we understand the ancient
tongue of the Hebrews in Canaan-the language in
which the OT is composed, with the ex-
2. Name
‘Hebrew ception of the Aramaic passages (Jer. 10 I T veying the distinct suggestion of some sensible notion. For
Ezra 48-618 712-26Dan. 24-728). We d o
language.‘ not find, however, that this language was pression
called Hebrew by those who spoke it. I t is the Zip-
L e . speech-of Canaan (Is. 1918), or, as spoken in
southern Palestine, n*iin’, Yewish ( z K. 1826 [I1 Is. 36111
Neh. 1324). T h e later Jews call it the hob tongue (])&
m p n ) in contrast t o the profane Aramaic dialect (com-
monly though improperly enough called Syro-Chaldaic)
which long before the time of Christ had superseded
the old language as the vernacular of the Jews. This
change had already taken place at the time when the
,expression ‘ in Hebrew ’ (+pai’ud) first occurs (Prologue
t o Sirach) ; and both in the Apocrypha and in the N T
t h e ambiguous term, naming the language after those
who used it, often denotes the contemporary vernacular,
not the obsolete idiom of the OT. T h e other sense,
however, was admissible ( e . & , Rev. 911, and so fre-
quently in Josephus), and naturally became the prevalent
one among Christian writers who had little occasion t o
speak of anything but the OT H e b r e ~ . ~ See A RAMAIC
LANGUAGE.
Hebrew is a language of the group which, since Eich-
horn, has generally been known as Semitic, the affinities
3. Semitic of the several members of which are so
languages. close that they may fairly be compared
with a sub-group of the Indo-Germanic
family-for example, with the Teutonic languages.
T h e fundamental unity of the Semitic vocabulary is
easily observed from the absence of compounds (except
i n proper names) and from the fact that almost all
words are derived from their roots in definite patterns
(measures)as regular as those of grammatical inflection.
T h e roots regularly consist of three consonants (seldom
four or five), the accompanying vowels having n o
radical value, but shifting according to grammatical
rules to express various embodiments of the root
idea.
T h e triliteral roots are substantially c o k m o n to the
whole Semitic group, subject to certain consonantal per-
mutations, of which the most important are strikingly
1 The Terahites, according to other testimonies, are Aramzeans but it appears that the present system of triliteral roots has
.(Gen. 22 zof: : Dt. 2F j); but the Priestly Writer, who cannot be grown out of an earlier biliteral system which, so far as it can
pre-exilic, makes Aram a separate offshoot of Shem, having
nothing to do with Eber (Gen. 10 Z Z J ) .
2 Cp Jerome, Quest. Hebr., on the passage, and Theodoret,
0%. LXI. i F t Gen.
3 The term ‘Hebrew language’seems to have originated with
the Grreks or Hellenists. Philo however calls the languageof
the OT Chaldee (De Vita Mosii 2 sf: ; dp Jerome on Dan. 1).
On the use of the expression ‘Hehrew language ’ in the Talmgd,
see Berliner, BritrEge ZUY A d . GY. 5 (Berlin, ’79).
7985
HEBREW LANGUAGE
analogous to those laid down by Grimm for the Teutonic
languages.
There are in Arabic four aspirated dentals, which in Hebrew
and Assyrian are regularly represented by sibilants, as follows :-
Arabic th=Hehrew-Assvrian t: Ar. dh=Heb.-Ass. z : AI.
Ar. d=Heb.-Ass.’+-.
In most of the Ararkaic dialects the first three of these sounds
are represented by t, d, and f 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
a t least of the Aramaic dialects approximated to the Hebrew and
Assyrian as regards the treatment of the first three sounds, and
changed the fourth into p (cp ARAMA~C, 5 2 , beginning, and see
below, 0 6).1
by the reduplication of root letters and the addition of
4. Their in- certain preformatives and afformatives
(more rarely by the insertion of formative
flection. consonants in the body of the root), partly
are pronounced. I n its origin almost every root ex-
presses 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 a t least con-
example, the names of passions depict their physiological ex-
; ‘ to confer honour’ means also ‘ to make heavy,’ and
so on.
T h e same concrete character, the same inadeqnacy
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 df particles in the scanty pro-
vision for the subordination of propositions ’ which deprives the
Semitic style of all involved periods and reddces it to a succession
of short sentences linked by the simple copula and.
T h e fundamental element of these languages is the
noun, and in the fundamental type of sentence the
predicate is a noun set down without any copula and
therefore without distinction of past, present, or future
time. T h e finite verb is developed from nominal forms
(participial or infinitive), and is equally without dis-
tinction of time. Instead of tenses we find two forms,
the perfect and the imperfect, which are used according
as the speaker contemplates the verbal action as a thing
complete or as conditional, imperfect, or in process.
It lies in the nature of this distinction that the imperfect alone
bas moods. In their later stages the languages seek to supply
the lack of tenses by circumlocutions with a substantive verb and
participles.
Other notable features (common to the Semitic
tongues) are the use of appended suffixes to denote the
possessive pronouns with a substantive, or the accusative
of a personal pronoun with a verb, and the expression
of the genitive relation by what is called construction
or annexation, the governing noun being placed im-
mediately before the genitive, and, if possible, slightly
shortened in pronunciation so that the two words may
4
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 :
be reconstructed, must form the basis of scientific inquiry into
the ultimate affinities of the Semitic group.2
1 [See Cook Aramaic GZossary S. 1, d p, w.1
2 Renan, Ff?&t. n’cs Langzles Skm., sketches the history of
research in this direction. Noteworthy are the remarks of
Lagarde, Symmictn, 121. On survivals from the hiliteral stage,
see Nijld. Mand. Grana. 96.
1986
 HEBREW LANGUAGE
Before the rise of comparative philology it was a
b. Age of familiar opinion that Hebrewwas the original
Hebrew. 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. I t is now, however, generally
recognised that in grammatical structure the Arabic,
shut up within its native deserts till the epoch of Islam,
preserved much more of the original Semitic forms than
either Hebrew or Aramaic.
In its richer vocalisation in the possession of distinct case
endings,z in the use for femiiine nouns of the afformative t which
in the northern dialect has passed through h (originally gudible
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 kealth and primitive subtlety of Semitic :peech as
appears not only from fragmentarysurvivals in the other dial&
but also from an examination of the process of decay which ha;
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, Comnj. Gram. . Driver, Tenses (A$#.
iii.): and N oldeke's art. ' Semitic Languages ' in EBP),published
separately in German, with some additions (Diesen$. Spvaden,
'87 ;F), '9d.I
T h e Hebrew spoken by the Israelites in Canaan was
separated only by very minor differences (like those of
our provincial dialects) from the speech of
Earliestneighbouring tribes. W e know this so far
€Iebrew' as the Moabite language is concerned from
the stone of Mesha ; and the indications furnished by
proper names, as well a s the acknowledged affinity of
Israel with these tribes, make the same thing probable
in the case of Ammon and Edom. More remarkable is
the fact that the Phenicians a n d Canaanites, with whom
the Israelites acknowledged no brotherhood, spoke a
language which, a t least as written, differs but little from
biblical Hebrew. This observation has been 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 Phcenician inscriptions, how-
ever, shows differences from Hebrew which suffice to
constitute a distinct dialect, and combine with other
indications to favour the view that the descendants of
Abraham brought their Hebrew idiom with them. I n
this connection it is important to observe that the old
Assyrian, which preceded Aramaic in regions with which
the book of Genesis connects the origins of Abraham, is
1 Theodoret (Quest. in Gerz. 11) Barbebraeus and others cited
by Assemani Bib. Or. iii. 1314. T i e same opinidnappearsamong
'the Baby1on:an Jews (Rab in Synh. 386). Conversely Jacob
of Sarug concedes the priority of Hebrew (see ZDMG b5 520).
The Arabs, whose language is in many points older than either,
yield priority to Hebrew (Ahulfeda, H A IS), or to Syriac (Tabari
1 2 2 0 ; Abu 'Isa in Ahulfeda, 148), the language of the race t i
which they owed their first knowledge of letters.
a That the case endings in classical Arabic are survivals of a
veryaticient system of inflection can hardly be doubted. It does
not necessarily follow, however, that in the primitive Semitic
language these terminationswere 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 ZMTSZ. These apparent anomalies
are probably relics of a time when the use of the case-endings
was determined by principles which differed, t o a considerable
extent, from those known t o the Arabic grammarians.
1987
HEBREW LANGUAGE
in many respects closely akin to Hebrew.I [Certain
inscriptions, moreover, recently discovered a t Zenjirli,
in the extreme N. of Syria, are written in a dialect which
exhibits many striking points of resemblance to Hebrew,
although it would seem, on the whole, to belong to the
Aramaic branch. 9
As the origin of Hebrew is lost in the obscurity that
hangs over the early movements of the Semitic tribes,
so we know very little of the changes which the language
underwent in Canaan. T h e existence of local differences
of speech is proved by Judg. 1 2 6 ; but the attempt to
make out in the O T records a Northern and a Judzean
dialect, or even besides these a third dialect for fhe
Simeonites of the extreme S.4 has led to no certain
results. In generalitmaybesaid that theOT 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 a n imperfect picture
of the very grammatical and phonetic details most likely
to vary dialectically or in course of time.
The later punctuation (including the notation of vowels :
see below, $3 g, and 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 4 5 has often a more primitive
pronunciation of proper names (cp NAMES, $3 d). This modern
system being applied to all parts of the OT alike, many
archaisms were obliterated or disguised, and the earlier and
later writings resent in the received text a grammatical
uniformity whicg is certainly not original. It 1s 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 t o
argue as if we possessed the original form of the texts (cp
W RITING).
T h e chief historical changes in the Hebrew language
.,
which we can still trace are due t o Aramaic influence.
Hebrew yields T h e Northern Israelites were in
Immediate contact with Aramzean
to Aramaic. populations and some Aramaic loan-
words were used, a t least in Northern Israel, from a
very early date. At the time of Hezekiah Aramaic
seems t o have been the usual language of diplomacy
spoken by the statesmen of Judah and Assyria alike
( 2 K. 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
Judzea increasing signs of Aramaic influence appear
before the Exile.6 T h e fall of the Jewish kingdom
accelerated the decay of Hebrew as a spoken language.
N o t indeed that those of the people who were trans-
ported forgot their own tongue in their new home, as
older scholars supposed on the basis of Jewish tradition :
the exilic and post-exilic prophets do not write in a
lifeless tongue. Hebrew was still the language of
Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah ( 1 3 2 4 ) in the
middle of the fifth century B . c . ~ After the fall of
Jerusalem, however, the petty Jewish people were
in daily intercourse with a surrounding AramEean
1 See Stade's essay on the relation of Phcenician and Hebrew
Morgenlandische Forsckung-en ('75), with Naldeke's criticism;
ZDMG, 29 325 ; also the latter's article, ' Sprache, hebraische,
in BL, 5 3 6 2 8
2 One of these inscriptions, set up by Panarnmii, 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-Reknb, belong to the latter half of the eighth cen-
tury. See A RAMAIC L ANGUAGE , $3 2 : in addition to the works
on the subject which are there specified the reader may consult
Lidzbarski's Handbud der nordsemiti&hen Ej&rujhik (Wei-
mar, '98), P. 4403
3 On the difficulty of drawing precise inferences from this
narrative see Marq. Z A TW"88 pp. 151.155.
4 Bottch. Lehrb. d . kebr. Sjiache 113f: ('66).
5 ,Details in Ryssel De EZohisie ldentateuchi S e m o n e (Leip-
sic, 78), the most impbtant collectionofmaterialssince Gesenius,
Gesch. der Le6r. Spr. u. Sch??yt ('15).
13 An argument to the contrary drawn by Jewish interpreters
from Neh. 88 rests on false exegesis.
1988
 HEBREW LANGUAGE
population, and the Aramaic tongue, which was the
official language of the western provinces of the Persian
empire, began to take rank as the recognised medium
of polite intercourse and letters even among the tribes
of Arabic blood-the Nabataeans-whose inscriptions in
the HaurBn are written in Aramaic. Thus Hebrew as
a spoken language gradually yielded to its more power-
ful neighbour, and the style of the latest O T writers is
not only full of Aramaic words and forms but also
largely coloured with Aramaic idioms, whilst their
Hebrew has lost the force and freedom of a living
tongue (Ecclesiastes, Esther, some Psalms, Daniel).
Tlie 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 zoo B. c., Jesus the son of Sirach (Ben Sir&),
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
Sir%uses a considerable number of late ‘words, mostly
borrowed from the Aramaic, the general character of
his Hebrew style is decidedly purer and more classical
than that of some parts of the O T (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.
Several other books of the Apocrypha appear to be
translated from Hebrew originals- Judith, I Macc.-
8. Scholastic the last according to the express testi-
Rebrew. mony of Jerome. I t is certain that the
OT canon contains elements as late as
the epoch of national revival under the Maccabees
(Daniel, certain Psalms), for Hebrew was the language
of religion as well as of scholarship. As for the
scholars, they affected not only to write but also 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, ‘ thelanguage of the wise’ (ovmn 11~5).
preserving some genuine old Hebrew words whic,h happen
not to be found in the OT, and supplying some new
necessities of expression by legitimate developments of
germs that lay in the classical idiom, but thoroughly inter-
penetrated with foreign elements, and as little fit for
higher literary purposes as the Latin of the mediaeval
schoolmen. T h e chief monument of this dialect is the
body of traditional law called the Mishna, which is
formed of materials of various dates, but was collected
in its present form about the close of the second century
A . D . (see L AW L ITERATURE ).
[A remarkable feature in the Hebrew of the Mishna
is the large use made of Greek and even of Latin words.
That these words were actually current among the Jews of
the period and are not mere literary embellishments (as 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.]
T h e doctors of the subsequent period still retained
some fluency in the use of Hebrew; but the mass of
their teaching preserved in the GemrEra is Aramaic.l
The language of the Mishna has been described by Geiger,
Lehr- und Lesebt’ch z71r S$rach der Mischnah (Brdau, ’45);
L. Dukes, Die Spruche der Mischna (Esslingen, ’46). and Z u r
ra66inischen SjracJzkunde (Vienna, ’SI); J. H. Welss, Mish-
j a f L’shan ham-Mishna (Vienna, ‘67).
1 See Ihcher. Die AKcadu der dnd~fonirchen Anznriier(Stras-
burg, ’7q), for many illustrations of the Hebrew scholarship of
the Gemxists.
1989
HEBREWS, EPISTLE
During the Talmudic period nothing was done for
the grammatical study of the old language ; but there
9. Gram- was a traditional pronunciation for the
matical synagogue, and a traditional interpretation
stuas. of the sacred text. T h e 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 Targnms of Onkelos and Jonathan, which
are often cited by the Talmudic doctors. Many things
in the language of the O T were already obscure, and
the meaning of words was discussed in the schools,
sometimes by the aid of legitimate analogies from
living dialects,’ but more often by fantastic etymological
devices such as the NotuviRon, or use of analogies from
shorthand.
T h e invention and application of means for preserving
the traditional text and indicating the traditional pro-
nunciation are spoken of elsewhere (see W RITI N G ,
TEXT).
T h e old traditional scholarship declined, however, till
the tenth century, when a revival of Hebrew study under
the influence of Mohammedan learning took place among
the Arabic-speaking Jews (Saadia of the Fayyiim,
Menahem ben Sarug, etc.).2 Then, early in theeleventh
century, came the acknowledged fathers of mediaeval
Jewish philology,-the grammarian Judah surnamed
Hayyiig, discoverer of the system of triliteral r ~ o t s . ~
and the lexicographer Abulwalid MerwBn ibn GanCth
(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 Melr of Toledo, suknamed
Ihn Ezra-also written Ahen Ezra-(mgz-1167) a man of great
originality and freedom of view ; Solomon I&ki of Troyes,
called Rashi ( i e . , R[abbEnul Sh[&mahl Y[is&kil) and some-
times by error Jarchi-;.@., of Lune1 (nl) ‘luna’)-(died 1105),
whose writings are a storehouse of traditional lore ; and David
Pimhi of Narbonne, called Radak (circ. TZOO), 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.
[TheJewish Encyclopredia,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. %-A. A. B.
HEBREWS ( W~I~Z), Gen. 40 15 etc. See above a n d
c p I SRAEL, I.
HEBREWS (EPISTLE). T h e NT writing usually
known under the name of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
1. Title. or, less correctly, as the Epistle of Pan1 the
apostle to the Hebrews, bears in the. oldest
MSS no other title than the words n p o c sBpaloyc
[soTi. W H , etc.], ‘ T o the Hebrews.’ This brief heading
embraces the whole information as to the origin of the
epistle on which Christian tradition is unanimous.
Everything else-the authorship, the address, the date
-was unknown or disputed in the early church, and
continues to form matter of dispute 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
1 See B. Rash hash-ShZni, 26 6; Del. on Ps. 5 5 q [ z + ] and
Is. 1423.
2 The connecting link between the Masoretes and the gram-
marians is Rahbi’Aaron ben Mosheh hen Asher, whose D i k d u ? ~
hat-Tamint has been published by Baer and Strack($eips. ’79).
3 See his Two Treafises, edited by Nutt, London, 70.
4 His Book of Roots, in Arabic, edited by Neubauer, Oxford.,
1875.
I990
 HEBREWS, EPISTLE
time we must not suppose, as has sometimes bcen
supposed, that the anthor prefixed these words to his
original manuscript. T h e title says no more than that
the readers addressed were Christians of Jewish extrac-
tion, and this would be no sufficient-address for a n
epistolary writing (1322) 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 (13 19 23). 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.
With this it agrees that the early Roman church,--
where the epistle was known about the end of the first
century, and where indeed the first
2.
traces of the use of it occur (Clement,
history of and ShepherdofHermas)-had nothing
to contribute to the auestion of author-
ship and origin except the negative opinion that the
book is not by Paul.
Caius and the Muratorian fragment reckon but thirteen
epistles of Paul ; Hippolytus (like his master Irenzus of Lyons)
knew our book and declared that it was not Pauline.
T h e earliest positive traditions of authorship to which
we can point belong to Africa and Egypt, where, as we
have already seen, divergent views were current by the
end of the second century. I. T h e African tradition
preserved by Tertulliau (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 a t present it is the favourite view
[see below, $5 4, 111.
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 Panttenus
(Euseb. Hist. EccL 614).
This ‘ blessed’presbyter,’ as Clement calls him sought to
explain why Paul did not name himself as usual a: 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
i n 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.
?rigen rests on the same tradition, which he refers to ‘the
ancient men ; but he knows that the tradition is not common to
all churches. H e feels that the language is 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 338).
I t is ;ot surprising’that theselimitations of the traditio; had less
influence than the broad fact that Origen accepted the book as
of Pauline authority.
I n the West this view was still far from established in
the fourth century ; but it gained ground steadily, and,
indeed, the necessity for revising the received view could
not be qnestioned when men began to look 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 centu& the Paulineauthorship wasacceptedat Rome,
and practically throughout Christendom, not to be again disputed
till the revival of letters and the rise of a more critical spirit.
I t was Erasmus who indicated the imminent change
of opinion.
I991
HEBREWS, EPISTLE
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 hook. He ventures
the conjecture, based on a passage of his favourite Jerome, that
Clement of Rome was the real author. Luther (who suggests
Apollos) and Calvin (who thinks of Luke or Clement) followed
with the decisive argument that Paul who lays such stress on
the fact that his gospel was not taugit to him by man but was
by direct revelation (Gal. 1I.$), could not have written Heb.
23f: where the author classes himself among those who received
the message of salvation from the personal disciples of the Lord
on the evidence of the miracles which confirmed their word.
T h e force of tradition seemed already broken ; but
the wave of reaction which so soon overwhelmed the
freer tendencies of the first reformers, brought back the
old view. Protestant orthodoxy again accepted Paul as
the author, and dissentient voices were seldom heard till
the revival of free biblical ciiticism in the eighteenth
century. As criticism strengthened its arguments, theo-
logians began to learn that the denial of tradition in-
volves no danger to faith, and at the present moment,
scarcely any sound scholar will be found to accept Paul
as the direct author of the epistle, though such a
modified view as was suggested by Origen still claims
adherents among the lovers of compromise with
tradition.
T h e arguments against the Alexandrian tradition are
in fact conclusive.
It is probably unfair to hamper that tradition with Clement’s
notion that the book is a translation from the Hebrew. This
monstroushypothesisreceived its redaccfioad
3. Not by Paul. absurdum m the attempt of J. H. R.
Biesenthal to reconstruct the Hebrew text
( D a s Trosfschreiben des A#osffZs PauZus an die Hebr&r,
Kritisch wiederhergesfellf, etc., 78). Just as little, however,
can the Greek be from Paul’s pen.
T h e 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 thoug-ht
but a central point in th; author’s conception of Christianhy,
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
T h e force of these arguments can be brought out only
by the accumulation of a multitude of details too tedious
for this place ; but the evidence from the few personal
indications contained in the epistle is easily grasped and
not less powerful.
The ar&ment from 2 3 x , which appeared decisive to Luther
and Calvin, has been referred to already ($3 2). Again, we read
in 1319 that the writer is absent from the church which he
addresses but hopes to be speedily restored to them. This
expressio; is not to be understood as implying that the epistle
was written in prison, for 1323 shows that the author is master
of his own movements.9
The plain sense is that the author’s home is with the
church addressed, but that he is at present absent, and
begs their prayers for a speedy return. T h e external
authority of the Alexandrian tradition can have no
weight against such difficulties. If that tradition was
original and continuous, the long ignorance of the
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
1 For the Alexandrian elements in the enistle. consult the list
of p ~ s & ~ & Hi]genfeld‘s Einleitunf i84 n. (Leipsic, ‘75).
A large mass of valuable material is collected’in J. B. Carpzov’s
Sacra Exercifafionesin E@.ad Neb. ex Philone A Zexandrino
(Helmstadt 1750). [Von Soden (Handcomm. 4) gives addi-
tional instakes of dependence on Philo, and proves the literary
influence also of the Wisdom of Solomon; cp Plumptre in
Expositor, 1st ser. vol. i. (‘74).1
2 In 10 34 the true reading is not ‘ of me in my bonds,’ but ‘on
them that were in bonds’ (70;s Scuphs wvfaa0vjuare). The
false reading, which was that of Clement of Alexandria, is
probably connected with the tradition that Paul was the author.
1992
 HEBREWS, EPISTLE
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 (1323), but also by
many unquestionable echoes of the Pauline theology,
and even by distinct allusions to passages in Paul's
epistles.
I n a n uncritical age these features might easily suggest
Paul as the author of a book which [doubtless, because
its Pauline origin was universally believed in Alexandria]
took its place in MSS immediately after the recognised
epistles of that apostle, and contained nothing in its
title to distinguish it from the preceding books with
similar headings, ' T o the Romans,' 'To the Cor-
inthians,' and the like.a A similar history, as Zahn has
pointed out, attaches to the so-called second epistle of
Clement to the Corinthians.
When we see that the tradition which names Paul as
author does not Dossess an authentic historical basis. we
are necessarily carried on to deny historical
4. other authority t o the subsidiary conjectures or
suggestions.
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.
T h e name of Lnke seems to be a conjecture of the
Alexandrian Clement, for it has no place in the tradition
received from his master.
Orjgen attaches no importance to either name. Some had
mentioned one and some the other ' God alone knows the truth.
We have no ;,ason to think more'highly of these suggestions
than Origen did. Indeed no Protestant scholar now proposes
the name of Clen~ent whdse extant epistle to the Corinthians
shows his familiarity k t h 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
?arallels between our epistle and the Lucan writings (Conzm.
57 ; ET, '68-'70). The arguments of Delitzsch are generally met
with the objection that OUT 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 hook in thought and method as well as expression.
T h e theory that Luke was the independent author of
the epistle (Grotius and others) has n o right to appeal
t o '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. T h e 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 hy Barnahas. The superior
elegance of the style of our 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, 5 8). On the other hand, it is hard
to believe that the comect account of the authorship of our book
was preserved only in Africa, and in a tradition so isolated that
Tertullian seems to he its only independent witness. How could
Africa know this thing and Rome be ignorant? Zahn, who is
the 'latest exponent of the Barnabas hypothesis, argues that in
the West, where the so-called epistle of Barnabas was long
unknown, there was nothing to suggest the idea of Barnabas as
an author; that the true tradition might perish the more readily
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. 32 35) '
but it is word for word from Rom. 1219. [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 0nke)los.I Further signs of dependence on
Romans and Corinthians (which require sifting) have been
collected by Holtzmann ( E i d 332) ; see also Hilgenfeld's
Zt. 9 4 3
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.
1993
HEBREWS, EPISTLE
in other parts of the church after the name of Barnabas Sad
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 name2 in Alexandria may there
have carrjed 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 A6yos napawb+s
(Heb. 1322) was ascribed to the uibs rraparbjuews (Acts 436) in
the same way as Ps. 127 was ascribed to Solonlon 'the beloved
of the Lord' (z Sam. 12243) from the allusion 'in 1212, than
that this coincidence of exprekon affords a confirmation of the
Barnabas hypothesis.
I n short, the whole tradition as to the epistle is too
uncertain to offer much support to any theory of author-
ship, and if the name of Barnabas is to be accepted, it
must stand mainly on internal evidence, See further
below, 11.
Being thus thrown back on what the
*' Original epistle itself can tell us, we must look a t
the first readers, with whom, as we have
u6e of OT. 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. I t is
plain, indeed, that the writer is a t one with his readers
in approaching all Christian truth through the OT.
He and they alike are accustomed to regard Christianity a s 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 Deoole of God : it is the
original record of the promises which hive been fulfilled to it in
Christ ; and tlie institutions of the Old Covenant equally with
the histories of the ancient people are types for Christian times.
T h e 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 a n Alexandrian, he is
bolder in the freedom, rendered possible by the
allegorising method, with which he adapts OT pre-
scriptions to N T times. In the same degree in which
our author comes behind Paul in originality and
force of character does he rely in a more academic and
thoroughgoing manner on the absolute and supreme
authority of the O T for Gentile Christians also.
T h e whole tendency of the epistle, however, is against
the theory that it was originally addressed to Jewish
That the readers were in
6 , Not Jewish Christians.
no danger of relapsing into participation
Christian. 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
1 [BO 5-9 of the present article have undergone very consider-
able revision the view that the epistle was originally addressed
to Jewish Ciristians being here abandoned.]
I994
 REBREWS, EPISTLE
those who are not Jews. Nor could any such warning
b e necessary in the case of readers who so plainly were
a t one with the author of the epistle with regard to the
Alexandrian allegorizing methods. Robertson Smith
concedes that at least their ritualism seems to have been
rather theoretical than practical, and goes 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 Migy. A6r. 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 $ere 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
a p ro riate to their case.
&Ifmore does this hold good of the negative precepts of the
epistle. Assnmin that they had thoughts of returning to
Jnda!sm, how coufd they have felt themselves touched by a
warning not to depart from the living God (3 IZ), not to reject
‘him that is from heaven ’ (rbv h d ohpavGv, 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’hlood of the
covenant an unholy thing, not to do despite to the spirit of grace
(lozg)? How could they be expostulated with as if their pro-
posed action proceeded from &e&a (3 I 8 4 11), or from an evil
heart of unbelief (3 IZ), or as if they were being hardened in the
deceitfulness of sin (3 ‘ 3 ) or in danger from regard to outward
show, and from clinginisin (121)? How could the OT (Dt.
29 18 [IT]) figure of the root of bitterness (1215), 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 61f: 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
i s 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 1-413). Apart from the
references to moral infirmity in 12 I 3 the only positive fault
that theauthor mentionsin connection with the lesson drawn from
his doctrine to use with diligence the specifically Christian way
of access to God (10 rg$) is a disposition to neglect the privileges
of social worship (1025). This again is plainly connected, not
with an inclination to return tb the gynagogue but with a re-
laxation of the zeal and patience of the first’dayk of their Chris-
tian profession (6 +$ 10325 12 I$), associated with a less firm
hold than they once had of the essentials of Christian faith, a
less clear vision of the heavenly hope of their calling (3 12 4 I K
5 12).
T h e 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 (31161f:).
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 (1032-34)we learn that
the readers have been passing through sore persecutions. How
I995
HEBREWS, EPISTLE
long these have lasted is not said : hut the present attitude of
the readers is different from what it had been. Once they had
kept steadfast ; hut now their endurance threatens to give way;
they are in danger of casting away their confidence. In chap. 11
they are pointed to the examples of a faith that triumphed over
every obstacle, and exhorted to a similar conflict, even anto
blood, inasmuch as Jesus has gone before then1 as the beginner
and ender of faith (12 13).The writer grants that their cir-
cumstances are such as niay well make hands listless and knees
feeble and souls weary and faint (12 3 1zf: 6 1 2 ) ; but the proper
course is to take all this as aacMa (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
(13 7), to go forth Z&o 76s wape,uPoA+js--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
(1I ) , and again in 22 32-6 and elsewhere.
The ar ument in chaps. 7-10 is not intended to prove the abro-
gation ofgthe 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 1-10 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.
T h e author knows no better way to prove the truth
of Christianity than simply by showing that it is in
every respect the complete fulfilment of all that was
prefigured and promised in the OT, the record of the
pre-Christian revelation of God.
This manner of using the OT in argument must not,
however, be held to imply on the part of the readers a
previous acquaintance with the OT, such as would
have been possible only in the case of Jews. A similar
line of argument is addressed in Gal. 3f: z Cor. 3 IO$
to the Pauline, and admittedly Gentile, Christian com-
munities of Galatia and Corinth ; Philo also, addressing
pagan readers, takes all his proofs from the OT.
T h e view that those originally addressed in the epistle
were Jewish Christians, although supported by the
ancient tradition implied in its superscription, must thus
be given up. With this, the difficult problem of finding
a local habitation for such a community disappears.
T h e following are the hypotheses as to the place of
abode of the readers of the epistle that have been
7. offered. I. T o some writers ‘the
? emphatic ‘ all ’ in 13 24, the admonitions in
1025 1317,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 I Thes. 5 2 6 ) , distinctly
contrary to the general tone of the epistle, which moves
altogether outside of the antithesis between Jewish and
Gentile Christianity. W e must think not of a party but
of a church, apd such a church can be sought only in
Palestine, or in one of the great centres of the Jewish
dispersion.
T h a t the epistle was addressed to Palestine, or more
specifically to Jerusalem, has been a prevalent opinion
from the time of Clement of Alexandria, mainly because
it was assumed that the word Hebrews must naturally
mean Jews whose mother-tongue was Aramaic. The
1996
 HEBREWS, EPISTLE
term has this restricted sense, however, only when
put in contrast to Hellenists. I n itself, according to
ordinary usage, it simply denotes Jews by race, and in
Christian writings especially Jewish Christians.
There are several things in the epistle that seem to
exclude Palestine, and 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 spirituai
things they had impartpd (Rom.1527): In fact the great
weight laid in the epistles of Paul on this-the onl; manifesta-
tion of the catholicity of the church then possible (Gal. 2 IO)-
alone explains the emphasis with which our author cites this
one proof of Christian feeling.
Again, the expressions in 23 already referred t o imply
that the readers cud not include in their number direct
disciples of Jesus, but had been brought to Christ by
the words and miracles of apostolic missionaries now
dead ( 1 3 7 ) .
This conversion, as it appears from 1032, was a thing of pre-
cise date immediately followed by persecution (note the aorists
~ w r r u e ~ ” r e c - i r n ~ p l r e ~ u a r ~Accordingly
). we cannot suppose those
addressed to represent a second generation in the Palestinian
Church ; we are referred to some part of the Diaspora.
Against these difficulties-which have led some of
the defenders of the Palestinian address, a s Grimm
(who, in Hilgenfeld‘s Zeitschr., ’70, proposes Jamnia)
and Moulton (New Testament Commentary f o r English
Readers, vol. iii., ‘79),to give up Jerusalem altogether,
whilst others, as Riehm, suppose that the Hellenists of
Jerusalem (Acts 61)a r e primarily addressed [and B.
Weiss thinks of the epistle as having been a circular to
Palestine generally]-it is commonly urged that the
readers are exposed to peculiar danger from the per-
secutions and solicitations of unbelieving Jews, that
they a r e in danger of relapsing into participation in the
Jewish sacrifices, or even that they appear to have never
ceased to follow the ceremonial observances that had
their centre in the temple ritual.
The capital argument for this is drawn from 13 13 where the
exhortation to go forth to Jesus without the camp isiaken 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 Lot includ;
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 he 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 hy the
mediatorship of Christ. Their ritualism, however, seems to
have been rather theoretical than practical. Had they been
actually entangled in the daily practice of superseded ordin-
ances, the author, whose insight into the true worth of these
ordinances is clear, and whose personal relations to the Pauline
circle are obvious, could hardly have been so nearly one of
themselves as appears in 13 19, and at any rate could not have
failed to give an express precept on the subject. On the con-
trary, he is in thorough sympathy with the type of doctrine on
which their churc) 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 g hardly refers to
sacrificesor to Levitical laws of clean and unclean but rather
to some such form of asceticisni(cp 5 4) as is spoken oiin Rom. S4
[or, still more probably, to the question discussed in 1Cor. 8-10,
about the cating 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.
1997
HEBREWS, EPISTLE
2. This accordingly has led other critics t o think of
one or other of the centres of the Diaspora. Hofmann
8. Alexandria. suggests Ahtioch ; Ewald,l 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 ( Untersucrt-
ung Gber den Nebrderbrief, z [‘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 schisniatical temple of Leontopolis.
See HEKES, C r r y OF.
Wieseler tries to show that in his description of the temple and
the functions of the high priests our author diverges from the
Judaean pattern and follows peculiarities of the Egyptian
temple. This argument, however, rests on a series of improb-
able assumptions. The supposed peculiaritiesof 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 I I the high priest is not mentioned and
in 7 2 7 the phrase KO&’ $pkpau does not mean ‘daily,’ bu; ‘on
every appointed day,’ that IS, ever again and again.
It is more difficult to understand why in 9 4 the golden
Bupianjprov, 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
A#oca@#se of Baruch (G7, see ed. Charles, p. 168), however to
which Harnack has directed attention (St.K r ‘76, p., 572k).
similarly connects the censer with the Holy‘Af 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.
T h e use in chap. 11 of 2 Macc., a n Egyptian Apocryphon
[and of the Book of Wisdom, perhaps also of Philo‘s
writings], and the general. sympathy of the argument
with Alexandrian thought, can a t best be adduced as
proving something with regard to the writer, but not
with regard to the readers. Against Alexandria, on the
other hand, is the whole history of the epistle. It was
in Rome that it first became known; in Alexandria,
when evidence of its presence there becomes forthcoming
during the last third of the second century, men have
ceased to be aware that Paul is not its author. If,
however, the original recipients of the epistle were not
Jewish Christians (above, §sJ) there is no need to
think of Alexandria, which presented itself to men’s
minds only in the search for a place where a community
of Jewish Christians might be conceived to have existed.
Among Continental scholars the disposition a t present
is to favour the Roman address.
I t is true that as long as the Jewish character of the
addressees is maintained there is a meat u deal to be said
9. Probably against regarding Rome as their home.
I n that case one must, to begin with,
Rome. assume that, even in the post-Pauline
period, either the Roman church consisted mainly of
believers who had been born Jews (which even for the
Pauline period is justly called in question by the most
recent investigators), or that, assuming the Roman
church t o have, been a mired one, the letter was
originally directed to a Jewish section of the Roman
Christians. This is not quite plausible, especially since
we find in the epistle no trace of the division of parties
alluded to by Paul in his epistle from Rome to the
Philippians.
As soon, however, as the Gentile character of the
addressees is conceded, everything else fits admirab:y
with the aSsumption that the epistle was directed to
1 Dar Sendschreiben an die Hedraer und Jakobus Rund-
schreiben u6ersetzt und erkltrt Gottingen, ‘70.
2 The kyriac word in Baruch is PirmZ. To the passages
cited by Harnack to establish for this word the sense of censer,
not incense altar, may be added Bar Ali, ed. Hoffmann, No.
2578; Barhebr. Chron. EccL 507; Ezek. 8 II (Pesh. and Syr.
Hex.).
1998
 HEBREWS, EPISTLE
Rome, where it was read as early as in the days of
Clem.Rom. The salutation by those of Italy’ ( o t
d ~ Tb? ~ ‘S I T U ~ ~ :U 1324)
S permits the inference that not
only the entourage of the writer, but also thereaders,
had some relations with Italy. As the writer, as well
as ‘those of Italy,’ is away from his own home, it is
not too much to infer that both are in the same case-
that both the writer and those who join in the salutation
have their home in Italy. T h e Roman church had,
as presupposed of the readers here, received the gospel
through intermediary persons. From the beginning
also it had had to suffer persecution. T h e atrocities
of Nero had been confined to Rome. Chap. 137 could
apply very specially to Peter and Paul. If it be thought
that the same episode is referred to in 1033, the word
@euTp@fievoc ( ‘ made a gazing-stock ’ ) would he intended
t o be taken literally. I Cor. 49, however, leaves room
also for a less literal meaning. There is much t o he
said for the view that there were two persecutions, in
the midst of the second of which the readers a t present
are, although as yet there has been no actual shedding
of blood ( c p Von Soden, Heby. vi. ).
On this assumption we should have to think, if Rome
be the place, of the reign of Domitian (others suggest
that of Trajan). T h e many coincidences between our
epistle and that to the Romans are explained most
easily in this way. T h a t Hippolytus no longer has
any knowledge about the author of the letter is n o
objection t o the view at present being set forth. T h e
address of the epistle was doubtless lost soon after it
had been received. It would not take long for the
name of the writer also t o drop into oblivion, especially
when the church was passing through such troublous
times. I t is impossible to tell whether the writer’s hope
of one day revisiting the afflicted church was ever
renlised.
It has generally been argued that the epistle to the
Hebrews, which describes the temple services in the
lo. Date. present tense, must necessarily have been
written before they ceased to be performed.
I t has been shown in the most conclusive manner, how-
ever, from the similar use of the present tense in
Rabbinical writers as well a s in Josephus and elsewhere,
that this argument goes for nothing-especially as our
Alexandrian theologian is dealing, not with external facts,
but with truths which continue valid whether the temple
h e standing or not-and the most recent writers, since
Holtzmann’s discussion of the subject in Schenkel’s
Bibel-Lexikon, 2623$, geperally admit that the epistle
may have been written after the fall of the temple. If
this be so it can hardly be questioned that the most
natural view of the apostle’s argument, as it comes to a
point in such passages as 8 13 99, 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.
T h e author shows himself fully aware of the in-
tellectual movements of the Christianity of his time
(so far a s these are k n o w n t o us). H e is
11. Literary acquainted with the theology, and with
and some of the letters, of P a d : he shares
theological Paul’s view that the followers of Christ
character. 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. T h e whole problem as t o
these distinctions has for him disappeared. In seeking
to arrive at an intelligent view of the Christian redemp-
1999
HEBREWS, EPISTLE
ion, and a t a right appreciation of the relation of the
Vew Covenant to the Old, from which it proceeded and
n which it passed through ’Its initial stages, he follows
L path entirely his own, and shows himself to be an
xiginal thinker in no way dependent on Paul. I Peter,
Ephesians, and the writings of ‘ L u k e ’ show closer
rffinities with his epistle. Their authors seem all t o
lave been influenced by him ; or at least they move in
he same sphere-a region of thought which he alone,
iowever, has systematically surveyed and is able to set
orth with classical exactness. T h e movement of
ximitive Christianity which finds its highest expression
n the Fourth Gospel and I John is only the ripest fruit
If a growth to the maturing of which his way of looking
it things contributed most, next to Paul. T h e epistle
)f Clement of Rome shows his dominating influence
io less, though in a much more mechanical w a y ; the
)ne is the shadow of the other.
T h e author is the most ‘ cultured ’ of all the primitive
Zhristian writers, with the possible exception of ‘ Luke.’
He has a rich vocabulary at his command, and uses it
vith great skill. His epistle is full of rhetoric, and has
.he character of an urgent address more than of a
etter. Cp EPISTOLARY L ITERATURE.
The epistle is constructed in accordance with the rules of the
ater Greek rhetoric : 11-4 13 rrpooiprov gpbs d v o i a v with sttte-
nent of the m p 6 0 e u ~ s . 4 q - 6 ’ m G L $ ~ mpbs
~ s mr8av6r777a; I I -
10 IS, &m66r&s rrpbs ) l i d & ; ld.rg-13zr %Aoyos, deducing the
xactical conclusions and pressing them home.
T h e writer is master of the Greek OT, down to minute
ietails, and has thoughtfully and intelligently considered
.he Jewish ritual system. H e is acquainted with
Hellenistic literature (Wisdom of Solomon ; cp 3, n. I)
and, whether as a diligent disciple or as an independent
ntellectual kinsman of Philo, understands the Alex-
andrian method of spiritualising literal facts and appreci-
ating their significance. His main interest, however,
s in religion, not in mere speculation, although in ini-
mediacy of experience and in spiritual depth he cannot
:ompare with Paul.
Although we may not know his mame, we have what
IS better, a piece of spiritual self-portraiture by his
3wn 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 he-was the leader
of those Alexandrian thinkers whose vocation it was t o
present Christianity in such a form as would admit of its
being appropriated by the ancient world of culture, but
who a t the 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 a t last-must it be said?-the
kernel was lost sight of and disappeared. For this last
result, however, Apollos cannot he held responsible ;
on the contrary, in universal history he has the noble
distinction of having been the first to lead Alexandria
to Bethlehem.
A full account of the older literature will be found in
Delitzsch’s Commentary; and in the great work of Bleek (Der
B n k f an die Nebraer erliiutert duych Ein-
12. Literature. Leifung, ffebersetzurzg, undfortZauf e d e n
Cornmentar: Abth. I., Versuch einer uoll-
sfrindi‘en Einleitung, Berlin, ’28 ; Ahth. II., Uelersetzungand
Cornmentar, ’36, ’40)~ which has formed the basis for all subse-
quent work on the epistle, and is an indispensable storehouse of
material for the student. Bleek’s ultimate views on the exposi-
tion of the book may be gathered from the briefer posthumous
work edited hv Windrarh (Elberfeld. ‘68). T o the recent com-
mentaries citdd in the cou;se of the article may be added those
of Ebrard (‘50; ET, Edinburgh, 53).; TholuckP) (‘50, ET,
Edinburqh ‘42). Ldneinann ( ) (Gottmgen ‘ 6 7 ) ; H. Kurtz
(Mitau, 6;); B. ’Weiss in Meyer’s Conzm.,! WestcottPI (‘92);
A. B. Dav’dson (‘82). For the doctrine of the epistle the most
elaborate $ark is Riehm’s very useful Lehrbep&T des ffebraer-
6rief (Ludwigsburg, ’58-’59) ; with which, in addition to the
general works on N T theology by Weiss, Reuss, Beyschlag,
zoo0
 HEBRON
Stevens and others the reader may compare Ritschl’s F n f -
stehnni deer Altk&lischen KiercheP) 159 f: (Bonn, 57)
Pfleiderer’s Paulini?mns, chap. 9 (Leipsi:, ’73, ‘go), Urchrisfeni
thum (Berlin, (‘4, ’87), and (for the latest advocate of Barnabas)
Ayles, Destination, Date, and Authorship of the E). fo the
Hebrews (‘99). An excellent summary of the present state of
the critical questions hearing on the epistle is given by Zahn
in the art. ‘ Hebraerbrief’ in PREP). w. R. s.-H. ”. s.
[Harnack (‘Probabilist iib. die Adresse u. den Verfasser des
H.-briefs,”ZNTW116 [1900]) accepts the results of Zahn
( E M . 2 IIO 8)as decisive, viz. that the epistle was addressed
to a small circle of Christians (a Hansgemeinde) 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.]
HEBRON (fil?!,‘league’ [BDB], X ~ B P [BAL]), ~ N
one of the oldest and most important cities of S. Jndah,
supposed to have been founded seven years before
Tanis (Nu. 1322, see Z O A N ) is , ~ the mod. eZ-@aW (see
below), situated about midway between Beer-sheba and
Jerusalem.
Little is known of the history of Hebron. According
to Josh. 1513 $ it was taken by C ALEB [q.n., 5 21. who
1. History. overthrew its three chieftains A H I M A N (I),
S HESHAI , and T ALMAI [ I ] (see A N A K I M ) , than the cave of M ACHPELAH [q.w.] where Abraham
and changed its name from Kirjath-arba (p?lrn’ie) -:
to Hebron. This move may probably form part of
the ‘ Calebite ’ migration from Kadesh in M u q i to the
N., fragmentary notices of which may be discovered in
JE (see EXODUS i., 6 ; KADESHi., 3).2 Since other
clans besides Caleb shared in this move (see JERAH-
MEEL, K ENITES ), 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 id the yatri-
archal legends which centre around Hebron (see MIZRAIM, see JOSHUA.
I 2 E). If, too, our interpretation of the genealogy in I Ch. 2 3 4 8
he correct (see JARHA SHESHAN), we actually possess a record
of a marriage alliance ’with older inhabitants of the district.
Earlier than this we can scarcely ascend. The identification
of Hebron with the Khibuer in the lists of Rameses III.,
suggested by Sayce (RPFJ 632 39, HCM 333 cp 3 3 6 x ) is most
improbable (cp Moore, Judg. 24 n.), nor a.‘: we obliged to con
nect the name with the Uabiri of the Am. Tab., who overran
Canaan in the fourteenth century B.C. On the other band it
is just possible that Kirjath-’Arba‘ (the earlier name of HebrAn)
is no other than the Rubate mentioned in the same records.3
Under David Hebron attained considerable promi-
nence. H e had already been on friendly terms with
its inhabitants (cp I S. 30 31), and on his departure from
Z IKLAG he made it his royal city and the base of his
operations against Jerusalem (z S. 21-3 ; see D AVID , 5 6).
Here he is said to have reigned for seven years, his
position being rendered secure by alliances with the sur-
rounding districts (cp D AVID , § 11, col. 1032). T h e con-
quest and occupation of Jerusalem gave the opportunity
for those who had chafed under David‘s rule to revolt.
Absalom, who had spent some time a t the court of his
grandfather Talmai in GESHUR(q.v., z), made Hebron
his centre, and was supported by such prominent S.
J u d z a n officers as Ahithophel (cp G ILOH ) and Amasa.
T h e result of the rebellion is well known, and when-
at a later time- another revolt occurred, the whole of
this district supported the king ( z S. 202; see S HEBA
[ii., I ] ) . ~
Hebron was fortified by Rehoboam ( z Ch. 1110),and
1 Josepbus 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. Terad. E.r.
1 7 7 8 Hebron appears, appropriately enough, in the Calebite
genealogical lists (I Ch. 2 42).
3 So Hommel, A H T 231, n. 3 ; see, however, R EHOBOTH .
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 auarters-as was formerly the case with the mod. el-
HaZZl (ZDMG 12 487 ; Baed.(? 135 speaks of seven quarters)-
Gay he mentioned here.
4 The name is identical with that of one of the ‘sons of Anak’
ex elled from Hebron.
The view adopted above rests upon the belief (a)that 2 S.
13-20 has been heavily redacted; (6) that the rebellion of
2001
HEBRON
remained Jewish (cp Neh. 1125) until it was seized by
the Edomites in their movement northwards (see Enohf,
5 9). I t was recovered again by Judas the Maccabee
( I Macc. 5 6 5 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. BY iv.
979).
A place of such importance could not be without its
traditions, and in the patriarchal representations we
2. Traditions. find it closely connected with the figure
of A BRAHAM (4.v..A ri.1). His sori.
however (see I SAAC , 5 5 , end]; belo& rather to the
more southerly district, and though the ‘vale of Hebron ’
(pi?? p n y ) is once associated with Jacob (Gen. 3 7 1 4 ) ~
it is probable that either the text is corrupt (see JOSEPH,
ii., 5 3, where ‘ Beeroth ’ is proposed ; cp also EPHRATH,
I ) , or else ‘ Hebron ’ has been inserted by a harmonising
redact0r.l Nor does the cycle of Samson-legends con-
tain any perfectly safe reference to Hebron, for in Judg.
1 6 3 we should very possibly read SHARUHEN[ g . ~ . ] .
But what better expression of Hebron’s primceval sanctity
could there be than Abraham’s altar (Gen. 1318, J ) , or
and Isaac2 were said to have been buried ; or than the
ancient ‘ oaks ’ (rather ‘ oak ’) connected with the name
of M A M R E ? Accordingly we find Hebron recognised
in the time of David as pre-eminently the holy city of
J u d a h 3 ( z S. 5 3 1 5 7 ) .
Hehron gave its name to a family of Levites (see next art.
and cp GENEALOGIES i. $ 7 [v.]) and P makes it a city of refug;
(Josh. 21 13), and a&s it to tde li’ne Aaron ( I Ch. G 55 [40]).
Later generalising tradition believed that Caleb‘s conquest ’
of Hebron4 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 8) ;
From the time of Josephus onwards the traditional
tombs of the patriarchs formed the great attraction of
3. Modern Hebron, and the name ‘ Castle of Abra-
ham ’ from being applied to these struc-
town.
tures by an easy transition w-as applied
to the city itself till in the time of the crusades the
names of ’ Hebron ’ and ‘ Castle of Abraham ’ were used
interchangeably. Hence since Abraham is known
among the Mohammedans as g a l d AZZah, ‘ the friend
of God,’ their name for Hebron is ‘ t h e town of the
friend of God,’ or briefly el-galil.
The modern town lies low down on the sloping sides of a
narrow valley, to the W. of which on the hill Rumeideh lay
the ancient Hebron. Still farther to the W. is the traditional
‘oak of Abraham’ (see M AMRE). To the E. of the hill is the
‘Ain Saera, the probable scene of the murder of Abner (see
SIRAH, WELL OF). The environs are very fertile. Vineyards
and plantationsof fruit-trees, chiefly olive-trees, cover the valleys
and arable grounds and it has therefore heen customary to seek
for ESHCOL [g.n., i]in the neighbourhood (for another view see
NEGEB). The chief antiquities of the place consist of ruins
of ancient walls on the hill Rumeideh, two large reservoirs
(Bkket el-K$zzdzin and B. es-Sultdn)-the latter of which has
been identified with the pool me&ioned in 2 S. 412-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 HarLm see Conder, PEFQ, ’82,
p. 1g7=Suruey of W. Pal., Memoirs, 3 3 3 3 8 ; cp Tentwork, 2 ‘
79-86. S. A. C.
HEERON (\h?n; XEBPWN [BADEL]).
I. b. Kohath, b. Levi (Ex. 618 [PI, Nu. 3.19 [PI,
I Ch. 618[3]231z), eponym of the Hebronites (’37?Qp ;
d x e @ p w v ( e ) ~ ( r[BAFL]
) ; Nu. 327 [PI, 2 6 5 8 [PI x ~ p p w v
[A], I Ch. 2623, x ~ p p w v[BAL] 30J) or B n e Hebron
( I Ch. 1592319) ; seeGENE.\LOGIES,i.,§7(v.). Hebron
(see precedingart., §z)was a Levitical city. According t o
Absalom happened early in David‘s reign (cp JOAB, I), previ-
ous to his wars ( z S. 8 10. cp SHOBI) : and (c) that the revolt
of S HEBA (ii., I) has heen Lrtificially appended to the rebellion
(see AlSL16 15gf: 164 1 6 6 3 [rgao]).
1 So Kue. (Hex. $ 13 n. 7) Kautzsch-Socin Holzinger.
2 The redactor includbs Jadob ’ cp Gen. 37 4 ; above.
3 Note that in I K. 3 4 Josephul (Ant.viii. 2 I) reads ‘ Hebron’
for ‘ Gibeon ’ (see GIBEON$ 2).
4 In Judg. 1I O the deed is ascribed to Judah ; but‘see Moore,
a d LOC.
2002
 HEBRON
I Ch.2630f: both Hashabiah and Jerijah were Hebronite
Levites. T h e latter’s name and position is substantiated
by 2 3 1 9 ; but the enumeration of the four Levitical
subdivisions in 2 6 2 3 suggests that y n n $ as applied to
Hashabiah (u. 30) is simply a blunder for m:ng> (to the
Amramites), or hm& (to the Uzzielites) ; observe that
in v. 29 the Izharites are mentioned.’
2. In I Ch. 2 42 Hebron figures in the Calebite genealogy.
See H EBRON i., 3 I, 11. 2. S. A. C.
HEBRON, RV EBRON([l?M), Josh. 1928, a n error
for ABDON(q.u., i.).
HEDGE. I. T h e word for a thorn-hedge is n?lrDg,
m2ssziRuh (11 pic, &id& see B RIAR , 6 ; Mic. 74t ; @ differs)
or ”?>Wp, m2idkkZh; +payp6s (11 ll;, gidzr, see below; Is.
5 5t). See A GRICULTURE, B 5.
2. 111, gridZr, and a:??, gZdZrrih, are frequently rendered
‘hedge’ in AV. RV substitutes ‘fence’ in all caae.i, except in
Ps. 8940, wh& ‘hedge’ is retained, and in I Ch. 423, where
GEDERAH [g.v., 21 is given.
3. Qpayy6s (‘hedge’ in Mt. 2133 Mk. 1 2 1 Lk. 1423, ‘parti-
tion’ in Eph. 2 14) is C5.s rendering of 83iwn ; also of 111 in
Nu.2224 EzraSg Ps. 623 [4] 8012 [13] Prov.2431 Eccl.108,
and of 3171 in Ps. 8940 [41] Nah. 317.
HEGAI (’I?), keeper of the harem of Ahasuerus
(P&g TQW, Esth. 2 8 r&l[BKALP], v. IS [RKC.aLB]) ;
in u. 3 called RJ? (so Ba., Ginsb.) Hege, RVmg,, RV
H EGAI (BAKL om. ). T h e name is probably Persian ;
Rodiger compares ‘Hyras, the name of a courtier of
Xerxes (Ctesias, Pen. 24).
Marq. Fund. 71, however, noticing that in 2 3 Esth. La has
wyamu and in 3.8 pouyarG, identifies the name with B IGVAI
%.v.I.
In V . 14 (Tal [BWa LB], rator [K*]. TE[A]), SHAASH- the country (Porter, Five Years in Damascus, 1323f: ).
GAZ (i$y& susafuzi [Vg.], Sangu&fW [Pesh.]), the
keeper of the concubines (n*lj&??a it#), would appear
t o be a different personage, although d B N L reads
yar[os], thus identifying him with Hegai.
HEIFER. See generally CATTLE.
The EV rendering of (I) 719, gireh, in Nu. 1925, etc.,
Hos.416. In Nu. Lc. for the ritual of the ‘red heifer’ (313
nmlNf- ayah ‘&f#mmrih)see CLEAN, $17,
- Gen. 159 Judg. 14 18 Jer. 4620 Hos. 10 I I ; cp
2. 8 iy, -* eglnh,
ip nsiy, ‘eglath 6ZkZr, Dt. 21 3 I S. 1Gz Is. 7 21, and see
EGLATH-SHELISHIYAH.
3. 86paAro, Heb. 9 13 (referring to Nu. 19 z), cp Tob. 1 5 , and
see CALF, G OLDEN, 5 2 , n. I.
HELAH (?I&’? ; [A]), a wife of A SHHUR , the
father of Tekoa ’ I Ch. 4 5 7 (u. 5 a d o [Bl ahaa [Ll ; v. 7,
hodas [B*l, Bo. iBb1, &a [L]). dee NAARA;.
HELAM (i+q ; in v. 17 n&n, Kre n&n ; AIAAM
CBAI, of which XAAAMAK [B], x&A+&M& [L], inserte:
In v. 16 after TOY ~ O T ~ M I J Y are, misplaced variants),
a place ‘beyond the river‘ ( L e . , W. of the Euphrates),
near which the Syrians under Hadadezer are said to
have been defeated by David (2s.1016J3 ; XAA&&M&
[L])! probably Aleppo, the Halman of the Assyrian
Inscriptions. d seems to have read the name in >>rom. B, a h 3 [AI, ahhav [Ll, HELED LVg.1).
Ezek. 4 7 1 6 (7~A[~]iay [BAQ]), and assuming this to be
correct we might infer that Helam lay between the
territory of Damascus and that of Hamath, probably
not far from SIBRAIM Cq.u.1, which is mentioned just
before. This may have been the view of the translator
of d in Ezekiel ; but it would be hasty to assume its
correctness. T h e place associated with the traditional
defeat of the Syrians (see D AVID , 8 6) must have been
1 If we omit the parenthesis in v. 31 (‘even of the Hebronites
... Gilead ’), the close similarity between 30a and 3oa becomes
very striking.
a Jos. (Ant. vii. 6 3), following L but misunderstanding the
expression TW Elipou, makes XaAapas the name of the Syrian
king.
3 In the parallel passage I Ch. 19 a$n is omitted in v. 16 ; but
in v. 17 it has been corrupted into p n ~ (‘unto
$ ~ them’) and also
(corruptty) repeated in 0n.5~iiyy (the latter is omitted, how-
ever, by L and the Gr. of the Compl. Polyg.).
2003
HELED
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 11.
(860-824 B.c.), to whom it surrendered without a siege,
whereupon Shalmaneser sacrificed to Dadda the god of
Halman. (So G. Hoffm., Phon. Znschr. 39 ; Sayce,
Crif. Mon. 314; Peters, Nippur, 1 7 7 . ) T. K. C .
HELBAH (n?!?, ‘ f a t ’ ; cp AHLAB; XEBAA [B],
C X ~ A ~[A],
~ N [L]), a Canaanite town within the
nominal territory of Asher (Judg. 1 3 1 , and Josh. 1925
emended text, see H ALI ). Schrader ( K A T , ad Zoc. ;
cp K B , 2 g o J ) and Delitzsch (Pal: 284) compare the
Maballiba of the Prism inscription of Sennacherib, and,
with Moore, we cannot doubt that they are right.
Mahalliba is a Phenician town mentioned with Sidon,
Bit-zitti, Sariptu, UBu, Akzibi. and Akko, and, to
judge from the order of the names, must have lain
between Sariptu (Zarephath) and USu (see H OSAH ).
If we may assume that AHLAB( 4 . v . )and Helbah are
variations of the same name, this Assyrian inscription
gives us reason to think that Helbah is nearer thecorrect
form than Ahlab. T. K. C.
HELBON (fiat?, X E A B ~ N ] PQI, XBBPWN [AI),
the wine of which is noticed by Ezekiel (27 18) as one of
the articles exported from Damascus to Tyre, is surely
the present Halbiin 13 m. N N W . of Damascus in the
E. offshoots of Antilibanus. HalbGn, whose antiquity
is indicated by the Greek inscriptions found in it, lies at
the top of the fertile wiidy 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
A n inscription of Nebuchadrezzar (IR. 65, c p J A V A N ,
5 19) speaks of the dedication of wine from ‘ ( t h e
country of) Hi-il-bu-nim’ and another Assyrian list of
wines (11. Z?. 44) includes the wine of Hil-bu-nu.
Strabo (15 735) describes the Syrian wine from HalubBn, olvov
& %pias rbv XaAu@hou as drunk in the court ofPersia. The
XaAuPov of Ptol. v. 15 17 is hardly the same place (see COT
2 121). Cp further Z D P Y 8 3 7 , Del. Pur. 281, Waddington,
lnscr. 25,526. G. A. S.
HELCHIAR, AV Helchias (XEAK(E)IOY [BAL]),
I Esd. 81=Ezra 71, H ILKIAH .
HELDAI (’3\? [probably to be vocalised Ijoldai
or Huldai; cp readings below, and HULDAH], or
perhaps more correctly lfn, HSled, ‘weasel’ ; cp
again H ULDAH , and note the form HELED (rather
Holed) below, also the Sab. name lk, in D H M Ep.
Denk. 35) ; otherwise we might explain ‘long-lived’ ; see
N AMES , §§ 67J
I. b. Baanah the Netophathite, one of David‘s heroes, in Ch.
one of his twelve captains ( I Ch. 2715, XohSeba [B], -Sat [A],
oA8ra [L], HOLDAI [Vg.]). The name also appears under the
shortened form HELED(I Ch. 1130, l h ,XBao8 [Bl, XoaS8 [N],a
aAaS[A], ah. [L], HELED[Vg.]),andthecorrupt H E L E B ( D S2329,
.
2. One of a deputation of Babylonian Jews, temp. Zerubbabel,
see JOSIAH z, ZERUBBABEL(Zech. 610, oA6a [Aq.], HOLDAZ
[Vg.] ; in v. 14, by an error (‘7 became I2 or O), HELEM, Din,
which C5 misunderstands 3 ; eArp [Aq. Theod.], helem [Vg.],
*Q., [Pesh. in both]).
HELEB ($n), 2 s.2329. See HELDAI,I.
HELED (7$n), I Ch. 1130. See HELDAI. I.
1 There is a place of this name in 3 Macc. 4 11, four schene
from Alexandria (Strabo).
2 XBAOA and XOAAA apparently originate from XOAOA and
XOAAA-;.e., l$h-which is probably the correct vocalisation
here.
3 v. IO, T ~ VAppx6u.rov [BNAQT]; ZI. 14, 701s hopdvoimv
[BNAQTI, 701s ropevouuw ; A h . Q u ~ 6 [Ba.bl.
v In v. 14 Symm.
apparently read Dsn (79 bpOv7r ;vJrvra).
2004
 HELEK
HELEK (p$n), a Manassite and Gileadite clan
Z @AEK [A], EA. [L] ; Nu. 2630,
(Josh. 1 7 2 , K E ~ [Bl,
XeAer [B], -BK [AL], -ex [F]; patronymic 9i?$n?J, [B], 0 e h K A e [A], XAA. [L]), once, by a textual error,
Helekite, Nu. 2 6 3 0 (XeAqei [B], - B K I [AFL]). Cp
LIKHI.
HELEM (D$J). 1. A name in a genealogy of ASHER
( q . v . , § 4 i i . a n d n . ) ( ~ C h 735).
. than eight times in Shishaks list ( W M M As. II. E z l ~
i3nN n h - i x i is represented by K a l pahaaw bsshgoi a h o S [Bl,
N a b ulbs && 66. d . [AI, K a i d o l cauovh bSeh+oC ah. [L]. In I7:<bt'0
v. 32 the name is HOTHAM (g.v., I).
2 . A Babylonian Jew, temp. Zerubhabel (Zech. 614. TO^
Qnop&ourriv [BNAQr]), miswritten for HELDAI ; cp H ELDAI , 2 .
HELEPH (?\?; MOOAAM P I , MBA&J [AI, we suipose thename to be incomplete(cp. H ELKATH-HAZZURIM).
MEGAEC$ [L]), aplace-name(?)in Naphtali (Josh. 1 9 3 3 t ) .
?in, however, does not look much like a place-name ; hence mentaryThat
5 regards n as part of the name. The text is corrupt, and B B
suggests the(probab1e)remedy. q j n n (BBread &ng) has arisen
out of a dittographed dp?, the letters of which were trans-
posed and partly corrupted. ' From Heleph' should therefore
he onhted, and the derivation of ALPHEUS(4.2~)from 'the
place-name Heleph ' abandoned. .T.K. C.
HELEZ (v!lJ, r?n probably should be v$n, a n
abbreviated name, ' [God] has delivered,' 5 50 ;
XEAAHC W A L I ) .
I . The Pelonite or PALTITE rq.n.1 ( I Ch. 2710, xerrhqs [Bl; no obvious bearing upon the rest of the chapter, since
I Ch. 1127 shhqr [Ll ; z S. 2326, uehhqs [B, -s precedes], ehhqs
IAI, xahhv; &I).
2. A Jerahmeelite ( I Ch. 239, d h a v [L]). Cp Elusa
(BERED i.).
HELI. I. ( E L I ) ancestor of Ezra ( 4 Esd. 1I ) , see ELI.
2. ( q h c ~[Ti. WH])the father of Joseph, Mary's husband
according,.to Lk. 323 (called Jacob in Mt. 116). See GENE!
ALOGIES 11. The commentators have misunderstood a Tal-
mudic passage (Jer. Talm. Chag. 778) to mean that Miriam or
Mary was known as ,5y nix, 'daughter of Eli.' The mistake
is set right by G. A. Cooke, Expos., Oct. '95, 316fl
HELIAS (HELIAS [ed. Bensly]), 4 Esd. 7 3 9 AV ; RV a later writer knew, of course, that Gibeon was not
ELIJAH.
HELIODORUS ( H A [ E ] I O A U ~ O C [VA]; but in 37 read?k!'O
~AloAwpoc [V*], and so bVin vv. 8, 13, and 518). see H. P. Smith, who (with Thenius) points O ' V ? 'n ; 'there is
T h e chancellor (6 QrlrLjv 7rpuypbrwv) of Seleucus IV.,
Philopator, whom he murdered, and hoped in vain to
succeed (App. Sy7. 45 ; cp Liv. 4 1 2 4 ) ; 2 Macc. 31-
41. T h e picturesque story of the horse with the possible
terrible rider dashing into the temple precinct, and
trampling the sacrilegious officer of -the Syrian king
under foot, is well known ; Dante in poetry (Pzvgat.
20113) and Raphael on the walls of the Vatican have
given it fresh life. According to the author of the
so-called 4 Macc., 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, 5 3). We know
that the priests of Delphi, when their treasures were threatened
by Xerxes, knew how to protect them (Herod. 8 3 7 s ) ; cp also
the story in Paus. 1023.
T h a t Heliodorus was the ' chancellor' (RV ; see
2 Macc. 1011 132 3 Macc. 7 1 ; and cp I Macc. 3 3 2
z Macc. 3 7 1 3 2 3 ; similarly Polyb., Jos.) and not the
' treasurer ' (AV X ~ T ~ ~ Twith W V Cod. 19,etc., for 7rpuy-
~ ~ T W Yis ) shown by an inscription in which Heliodorus,
son of Bschylus, of Antioch, the U ~ T ~ O + O (or S intimate GEHENNA,
friend, cp MANAEN)of King Seleucus Philopator, is
described as hxL d v ?rpa[ypdrwv] nraypduov.
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, Bi6cktua'ien, 171-75 ('95).
HELIOPOLIS. See ON.
HELKAI ( 9 & i l , abbrev. from Iiilkiah), head of the Aram.
priestly B'ne Meraioth (or Meremoth) in the time of the high-
priest Joiakim (see E ZRA ii., $8 66, 11), Neh. 12 15 (BU'A om.,
c k a c [KC.* mg. inf.1, XehKLas [Ll).
zoos
HELLENISM
HELKATH (np)?, 'portion'? Josh. 1925, EAEKEB
[B], X E A K A ~[A], EA. [L] ; or n&a, ib. 2131, X ~ A K A T
H U K O K($p?n, I Ch. 660 [E]. I K A K [Bl, I A [Aa], ~
A K W K [L]), a n unidentified Asherite locality. The
name, if correct, is virtually identical with the forms
(za&aru,&~krua,etc. ( ' district '), which occur no fewer
be noted that Josh. 1925 is the oldest of the three
passages cited (Addis), and that it does not describe a boundary,
but consists onlyof a list of towns.2 Most probably it should be
emended' thus: 'And the territory of their inheritance (5122
nnsn, as in v. 41) was Helbah (see HALI), etc.,' unless indeed
P in Josh. 21 31 may have had the text before him in a corrupt
form. the Asherite list (1924&) is composite and frag-
is shown by Addis (Doc. Hex., 1 230 ; cp REHOB[i, 21).
S. A. C.
HELKATH-HAZZURIM( Dr?y;l Slj&l, MEPIC TUN
ETTIBOYAUN [BAL]), the scene of theencounter between
the men of Joab and Abner ( 2 S. 216). Whatever its
meaning may be, Budde (Ri.Sa. 240) and Lohr (Sam.
129, n. I ) plausibly see in OD. 14-16 a typical etymolo-
gising explanation of a name which has become corrupt
and enigmatical. Observe further that the skirmish has
Joab's words in v. 27 refer not hither (as RVmg.
suggests), but to v. 26 (cp Driver, ad Zoc.). 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. ' W h i c h is
in Gibeon ' (]iyx>x WN) ( = 16 6) may well be a gloss ;
destitute of pools (see Jer. 41 126).
With regard to the name, most moderns follow Schlensner, and
'n (after '€5, cp Dr., ad Zoc.). Against this, however,
no question of filotters or lievs-in-wait, hut of determined
enemies' (cp hni,6ouhos for 12, Est. 7 6 [~C.amg.l). It is also
to read n*iyn;l 'n, 'field of the reapers' ; or nwnn'n
'field ofthe men of Hazor'(or 'nonlads'? see HAzoR).3 But
in ch. 2 we may plausibly distinguish (a) a fragmentary account
of a battle against Ahner and all Israel, the scene of which
. .
is Gibeon (12 1 3 a . 17, +A),and (6) a narrative wherein
Abner is sui orted by Benjamites only (136-16, 18-24; cp.
25a, zga, 31).'f Now in (6) n. 24 finds Abner at the hill of
Adummim, before the valleylof Zeboim (on text, see GIBEAH?
§ Z[6]). It is therefore conceivable that the 'field of blades
(retaining the MI' ; cp RVmg.) is connected with Josh. 5 d , 5
and that it lay in the neighhourhood of the Giheah-hB'5rZlOth
(see GIBEAH,§ 21). If so, the vanquished followers of Abner
fled from Gilgal along by the ascent of Adummim to their homes
in Benjamin. S. A. C.
HELKIAS (XEhK[E]lAC [BAL]), I Esd. 1 8 = 2 Ch.
3 5 8 , H ILKIAH .
HELL, an unfortunate and misleading rendering of
the Heb. .TFe"bl(hv,--on etym. cp Jastrow, Ba6.-Ass. Rel. 560 ;
B 28qs cp HADES) for which the RV (partia1ly)G and Amer.
Vets. (wholly) suhititute SHEOL. In the N T 'hell' renders
( I ) JSqs (Mt. 11 23 etc.); (2) the derivative of dprapos ( z Pet.
Z4t'RVmg. TARTARUS), and (3) y k v v a (Mt. 5 2 2 etc., see
HINNOM).See generally ESCHATOLOGY.
HELLENISM. T h e writer of the article G ENTILES
closes with a reference to the epoch-making declaration
of Paul that in Christ ' there is neither Jew nor Greek'
1 GuBrin's identification with YerkE, 84 NE. of Acco, is
extremely improbable.
2 Hence BB's 'from Helkath' is incorrect.
3 v. 16a may imply a reading n'p??. With respect to the
first suggestion above it may be noticed that if dim is Ass. and
rather than Heb.. the use of n a h itself is equally note-
worthy (see FIELD, 3). '
4 See AJSL, 1900, p: 148&
6 Perhaps another aetiological legend.
6 See the revisers' preface.
zoo6
 HELLENISM
(Gal. 328). 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 qticle.
References to the Greeks are not wholly wanting in
the OT. Thus J AVAN (q.v.) is the Heb. term for the
1, Greeks in Ionians andGreeks generally; in Zechariah
and Daniel it even stands for the Graeco-
the OT. Macedonian world-empire.
In Is. 912 1111 @nNAQ 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 Diadochh when the Greeks
were the chief danger for’ the Jewish people. The rrkxalpa
;M?vrmj, too, of Jer. 26(46) 16 27 (50) 16, is due to a misnnder-
standing of the Hebrew, which is naturally to be ascribed to a
period when the thought of the sword of the Greeks was often
present to the Jews.
Of the O T Apocrypha, the books of the Maccabees
manifest intimate acquaintance with the Greeks.
Thus I Macc. begins with the statement that Alexander the
Macedonian defeated D a h s and reigned over Greece in his
stead, while the Macedonian empire is in I Macc. 110 called
@amheia‘EM+v : armies raised by the Syrian king are called
Greek in 2 Macc. 132, and by Greek cities in 2 Macc. 68 are
meant Macedonian colonies. With Greece proper, however
the Jews were not unacquainted. We find references to Athenian;
and Spartans in 2 Macc. 6 I 9 15 I Macc. 12-14, and a long list of
Greek cities in I Macc. 1523; nay, according to I Macc. 126,
Jonathan the Hasmonaan greets the Spartans, whose alliance he
seeks against the Syrians, as brothers.
T h e name ’ Greeks,’ however, now acquires a special
sense in the mouth of Jews : the inhabitants of a city
2. Secondary are distinguished in 2 Macc. 4 3 6 into
application of Jews and Greeks (cp 11 2 gMacc. 3 3 8 ) ;
- ” - ~ Greek is equivalent to anti- Jewish,
Y U W .
heathen ( 2 Macc. 4 1 0 1 5 69 1 1 2 4 ) ; and
in 2 Macc. 4 1 3 Hellenism is parallel to dAho+uhrup6s
(RV ‘alien religion’), as summing up all that a Jew
could attain only by abandoning the principles of his
fathers (2 Macc. 6 2 4 4Macc. 185).
Hellenism thus no longer denotes what is characteristic of
the Greek people or makes use of their language, but what
represents heathen as opposed to Jewish religion and morals,
and promotes heathen error. The idolatry that confronted the
Jews of Palestine and more than ever those of the Diaspora was
now always in Greek forms; for the Greek kingdoms of the
Diadochi included almost the whole world and a t least in the
cities, had with wonderful rapidity securedkor G;eek civilisation
as well as for the Greek language an unquestioned supremacy.
and heathenism was a danger to Israel only in so far as there la;
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.
I n the N T we see completed the development by
which ‘ Greeks ’ (“EXhqvcs)was substituted for ‘gentiles,’
’AXhbqhXor, and mankind was divided, from the most
important, the religious, point of view, into Jews and
Greeks. T h e original meaning of the word, however,
is not yet quite forgotten.
~ , TG d M q v ~ ~ (Acts
‘ E M V U L U T2v fj 21 37 Jn. 19 20 Rev. 9 11, cp.
the interpolation in Lk. 2338) mean simply ‘in the Greek
language’ ; and Acts 20 2 makes Paul jouruey from Macedonia
into Greece, thus using ‘ Greece ’ in the older sense, whilst Luke
himself is no less at home in these matters than the apostle of
the Gentiles. When too in Rom. 114 Paul calls himself a
debtor to Greeks and barbarians, to wise and foolish, he is
following a classical usage * and even in Col. 3 11 where to
Greek and Jew are added drbarian and Scythian, we seem to
have an echo of the same usage (see BARBARIAN).
I n Col. 3 11, 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.
’ four gospels is a translation from Aramaic. Although
Even Titus, though a Christian, is reckoned to the Greeks as
being uncircumcised (Gal. 2 3, cp Rom. 1 16 2 IO 10 12 I Cor.
124 1213). Qujte similar is the usage in Acts where the
most characteristic passages are 16 13 174 184; and, as by
‘ Greek women’ in Bercea (17 12)we are to understand heathens,
so also in the story of the Syropbaenician (Mk. 7 26).
Thus in the N T the distinction between ‘Jews and
Greeks ’ is used in exactly the same sense as the Jewish
distinction between ‘ heathen ar.d Israelites,’ as ‘ nations
(EBvq) and chosen people (Xabs)’respectively. Cp Wisd.
15 I4f., and many passages in the N T (e.g.,Mt. 10 5 Mk.
2007
HELLENISM
1 0 3 3 Lk. 21 24Acts 2623 Rom. 329 I Tim. 3 1 6 Rev. 1619).
The adjective &%1K6S, ‘heathen’ (Mt. 18 17 3 Jn. 7 ) . and.
Paul’s phrase ‘ live as do the nations ’ ( B B v d s M v [Gal.
2 14]), are used to descrilk a life regardless of the prescrip-
tions of the Jewish law. I t is significant, however, for
the standpoint of Paul that he uses both ‘nations’
(EBvq) and Greeks (“Ehhqves) even of Christians, if
they are of heathen origin.
The same man who in I Cor. 5 I treats the $ 6 as~ a community
separated from his readers by a great gulf and reminds tbein in
I Cor. 122 of the time when they wert.’&?q writes, e.z., 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
manknd ( I Cor. 10 32) into the three classes Jews Greeks and
Christians (church of God), divides the calied (I kor. 124j 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. 328 56 6 IS), and it was
only by a sort of accommodation to the imperfect conditions
of the present that such distinctions could any longer be re-
garded.
T h e Fourth Gospel occupies an exceptional position ;
it never once mentions the EBvq, and five times applies
the term EBvos to the Jews. Thrice indeed it mentions
the “ E h h ~ p ;~ but
s 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 his) 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 ”EXXqves are Greek-speaking Jews
living in Greek cities, called elsewhere Hellenists (cp
Acts 6 I). In Acts 9 29 11 20 a1so”EXhqves is a variant
for Hellenists.
T h a t to almost all the writers of the Hebrew O T
Greek was a n unknown lnnguage, will hardly be-
3. Jews, questioned by any one. Daniel is the
acquaintance only book that has adopted one or two,
Greek words in Aramaic form ( 3 5 7
with Greek IO 15 ; see D ANIEL ii., § I I ). Even the
language’ parts of the O T that are later than
Daniel were still in some cases (such as I Macc.
Ecclus. and Psalms of Sol. ) written in Hebrew ; though
to secure a wider circulation they had, like the already
canonised books, to be. translated into Greek.
Greek, however, was certainly the common language-
of the men who wrote 2, 3, and 4 Macc. and Wisd.
of Sol. T h e Jews settled outside of Palestine lost
almost completely their original tongue, and used Greek
even in religious worship ; and the Hellenistic litera-
ture that sprang up between 2 5 0 B. C. and 100 A. I).,
which had its most famous representatives in Philo.
and Josephus, and was in no sense confined to Alexandria.
and its neighbourhood, is Greek in language, only with
a Semitic flavour. (See H ISTORICAL LIT., 2 0 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. T o suppose,
however (as, e.g., G. B. Winer supposes, because of Mk.
7 24 Jn. 7 3 5 12 z o ) , 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 ‘of. ).
T h e earliest notes on his history may have been in the.
Aramaic dialect that he himself used : but none of our
they make use in part of such translations, they have.
all been written from the first in Greek, and the author
of the Third gospel, as of Acts, may have been a born
Greek who knew no Hebrew. T h e epistles of N T are.
one and all originally Greek. Biesenthal (Das Trost-
schreiben des A f . PauZus a n die Hebnter, ‘76) stands.
alone in recent times in venturing to deny this in the.
case of the eminently smoothly written epistle to the:
Hebrews (cp H EBREWS , 5 11). Even the Apocalypse,,
2008
 HELLENISM
notwithstanding the abundance of its Hebraistic defects
.of style, cannot have had a Hebrew original.
T h e necessary consequence of the employment of the
Greek language -~ was that the influence of the Greek
4. Greek ideae. spirit and of Greek forms of thought
made itself felt. Even parts of the
Greek version of the O T marked by grbss literality
of rendering d o not fail to betray this influence.
How much more plainly must it reveal itself in the
originally Greek writings of Jewish or Christian origin I
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 +ihouo$la,
+rhomopyia and most of the compounds of +ihos ; or for ump-
oh6yos and b h 6 ~ h v p 0 ~or; for allavrruia and b+Sapuia (see
TMMORTALITY).
On the other hand, old Greek expressions acquire new
significations corresponding to Jewish conceptions such
~ V ~d) u n s .
as ~ [ K U ~ O U and
This linguistic change the most important stage of which is
reached in Paul, begins kith the oldest parts of the LXX (cp J.
Freudenthal, Die PL. /os@hus deigelegte Schrift aber die
Herrschaft der Vernunft [4 Macc.] 26f: [‘69] ;E. Hatch, Essays
.
in Bi6licaZ Greek ’8 A Deissmann ‘Beitr. z. Sprachgesch.
der griecbischen B!be?”in Bibe&dudieA, 55-168 [)951).
T h e increasing prevalence of the Greek language may
b e convenientiy seen in the abundance of Greek proper
names even amongst Jews of Palestine.
In Maccabaean times sprang up the custom of giving Hebrew
names a Greek form, Eliakim, e.g., becoming Alcimus (see
ALCIMUS, and NAMES, 0 86); then we find combinations of a
Greek and a Hebrew name as in Saul-Paul ; and then, as in the
case of at least two of the original apostles, Philip and Andrew,
we have pure Greek names. That so authoritative a court as
the chief council a t Jerusalem was for the Jews, could from
about 130 B.C. bear the official name of OUY&S~PLOYonly a t a
later day hebraised into Sanhedrin, is specially si&ificant for
the hold that the Greek language had acquired even a t the
headquarters of Hebrew life.
T h e spread of the Greek language brought with it
a spread of Greek civilization ; nay, the latter sometimes
Greek led the way. 1; the OT Apocrypha,
but more fully in the N T , we have
abundant evidence how dependent life
in all phases was on Greek custom and Gieek institu-
tions.
Greek coins such as the talent mina and drachma snper-
seded the old Hebrew ; even Riman doins like the ILF the
gradrans and the denarizs meet us in Hellenised f&m.
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 ( K P L /(S2)Macc.
12 15 Ps. Sol. 2 I , alongside of ‘engines of war’) and spearmen
-even Sopv+opia ( z Macc. 3n8)-and chiliarchs are not yet
displaced by Roman institutions accommodated to Greek usage,
such as um$a for cohort (Acts 10 I 21 31 27 I ; cp z Macc.
823 12 20 2 2 Judith 14 11). In accordance with Greek tastes
we find inns conducted by an inn-keeper (Lk. 10 34$), here and
there over the country ; Greek luxury has invented the side-
board of Simon (Kuhixiov i.g. K U ~ L K & V , I Macc. 15 32) and the
mosquito.net of Holofernes (KWVJTLOV, Judith 16 19) ; and even
the humble handkerchief uauSalprov (e.g. Lk. 10 20) reached
Palestine through the Greeks. z Macc.412 shows how in
clothing, too, Greek usage, such as the wearing of broad-brimmed
hats (rhauos), was contending with long-established custom
(see CAP). The tympanon hoth as musical instrument (Judith
8 7 cp Ex. 15 20 @) and aiinstrument of torture ( 2 Macc. 6 ;9),
sw: 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 Macc. 4 ; cp I Macc. 174 4 Macc.
4 E O ) , great indignation is expressed at the founding of a
gymnasium and an ephebez‘on within the holy city (cp
C AP ). Here the priests betook themselves to dancing in
the palaestra and to throwing the discus (see D ISCUS ),
practices almost as abominable in the eyes of the writer
as taking part in the Dionysos festival (2Macc. 6 7) or
the games at Tyre, when a sacrifice was offered to
Heracles. T h e N T writers, however, do not show the
same sensitiveness. Rev. 7 g describes the saints in
figurative language borrowed from the prize fights of
65 2009
HELLENISM
the Greeks, and so Paul is not unwilling to connect
Christian ideas with the proceedings on the race-course
or in the circus, and to draw his illustrations from such
sources.
Nowhere else can he have become acquainted with the
prize-runnersand boxers whomin I Cor. 924.27 he setsaspatterns
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 .
Ga1.2 z 5 7 Phil. 1 3 0 2 16), in which respect later writers have
followed his example (Heb. 12 I 2 Tim. 2 5 4 7 I Tim. 4 IO
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 8 7 p ~ o p a ~ e(iIvCor. 15 32).1 According
to Acts19 29-31 he was even willing to enter the Ephesian
theatre although to be sure not for artistic gratification. In
I Cor. 1 9 he declares that his fate has made him a spectacle
(OiaTpov) for angels and men (cp Heb. 1033) ; and in 4 D’acc.
6 17 we have the word Spiipa 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 np in
Tarsus and labouring among Greeks, speaks of those
amusements, when occasion offers, quite ingenuously as
something morally inoffensive. At least it was nowhere
necessary in the N T to sound any warning of danger
threatening in that direction.
Much more important than all this is the question
that remains. What did the Jewish or the Christian
writings appropriatk from Greek thought?
6, How far have the literature, philosophy,
th-oyiand t religion of the Greeks influenced those
”“ of the O T or the N T ? In the Hebrew
parts of the O T this influence must certainly not be
ratedvery high. Only in the case of KBhkleth (Eccies.)
is the question important.
Cornill, eg., regards it as certain (EinL $3 42) that the mind
of this author, who could but imperfectly combine radical
p,essimism with his ancestral religious faith, became, as it were,
simply intoxicated under the stimulation of Hellenic thought.
Wellhausen is more guarded in confining himself (IjG(1) 194
11. ; (2) 230 n. ; (3), 237 n.) to ‘undefined and general influences
that d a y have reached the Preacher from Greek philosophy.
In reality we can no more prove any direct acquaint-
ance on his part with, say, the system of Heraclitus or
with Epicureanism (cp Tyler, Plumptre, Pfleiderer),
than with Greek literature generally. Whatever may
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 E CCLESIAST ES, 8 IO).
I n the LXX, including the Apocrypha, traces of Greek
philosophy are more frequent ; but as a rule they are
not of such a kind that we should venture to explain
them in any other way than in the case of Ecclesiastes.
T h e tendency of the LXX to avoid anthropomorphic ex-
pressions (e.g.,‘see the salvation ofGod’ for ‘see Yahwh,’
Is. 3811 ; c p Ex. 2410), the use of the divine name
‘existing one’ (Jer. 1413 39[32]17 ; 2 c p Ex. 3 1 4 a), the
mention of the sons of the Titans3 and giants (Judith
1 6 6 [ 8 ] , the way in which a divine power is spoken of
as encompassing the holy place, and God as its ~ T ~ T T T ~
and Por)Ebs (2Macc. 338f:)-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 a n exception. I n the
latter this appears in the very opening words.
Notwithstanding that 4 Macc. sings the praisesofan imperturb-
ability peculiarly Jewish the familiarity of the writer with Greek
philosophy is everywhire apparent. He knows the Greek
cardinal virtues he makes use of the Stoic phrase ‘to live in
k a p a f i a ’ (8 26, herd brapafias) he actually quotes from a Greek
Stoic writer(7zz ; see the work’of Freudenthal cited above, B 4).
1 [But see M‘Giffert A$osfoLic Aye 280.1
2 [It is possible, hodever, that b hv)is really a corruption of
the interjection & which represents in Aq. and Sym. of
32 17.1
3 The Titans appear also in @ of z S. 5 18 12.
2010
 HELLENISM
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 G o d 2
all ideas derived from Hellenism.
Before turning our attention to the N T we must lay
emphasis upon the fact that this absorption of Hellenic
., Inother elements by Jewish thought, even in
Palestine, reaches much further than can
writings’ be shown from writings that could in any
sense be called biblical, and that much in the N T and
early Christianity can be explained only on this supposi-
tion. Those Jews who, from the third century B.c.;
thought to diffuse Jewish piety by means of Greek
verses, whether attributed to Orphens or to the Sibyl
(see A POCALYPTIC , § 8 6 8 ) . 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. T h e ideas of Satan
and demons, of the kingdom of heaven and of the world,
of hell and the life of the blest, which lie ready made in
the N T , if they naturally rested on a thoroughly Jewish
basis, were not without contributions from Greek theo-
logy (cp 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 N T writers have been influenced by ideas
originating in such ways.
At the present time, however, there is more danger
of overestimating than of underestimating the Hellen-
*, In the NT, istic elements in later Judaism and the
earliest stages of Christianity. Books,
for example, like Winckler’s Der Stuicismus 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 attri-
buted to Jesus, and it may almost be regarded as the
strongest evidence of the trustworthiness of the Synoptic
account of him that, in respect of their contents, they
too know of no approach to Hellenism. Such parallels
to the Synoptic speeches of Jesus as have been hunted
out in Greek-or Latin -writers are accidental con-
sonances.
Still more un-Hellenic in both subject and spirit is
the Apocalypse of John ; yet it is not improbable that
the mysterious 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
Let0 (see A. Dieterich, Abraras, 119J [‘91]).
In the case of Paul, contact with the Greek world
unquestionably goes deeper. Socrates the church
’’ historian (circa 440) felt justified ( 3 1 6 ) in
crediting the apostle with a knowledge of
numerous sayings of the Greek classical writers, relying
in so doing on Acts1728 I Cor. 1533 Tit. 112. T h e
metrical form of the passages in question is indeed
enough to show that they are drawn from the poetical
literature of the Greeks, and as a matter of fact Acts
1 7 2 8 has been found in Aratus and the Stoic Cleanthes,
Tit, 112 in Epimenides and Callimachus, I Cor. 1533 in
2011
HELLENISM
Menander and Euripides. If, however, the Pastoral
Epistles are the work of an unknown writer about
100 A. D., Tit. 1 1 2 proves nothing regarding the culture
of P a u l ; whilst Acts 17 is in no sense a stenographic
report of a speech of Paul in Athens ; it is the historian
that puts it in the mouth of his 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. 1533. 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
Acts 17 18$, Paul discussed in Athens with Epicnreans
and Stoics, this does not prove that he had read their
writings. When, e.g., Ramsay (St. PauZ?the TraveZZer
and the Roman Citizen, 2 3 7 8 rg5]) 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 ow%
knowledge, his own ‘education,’ and his own fine
historical feeling.
Those go too far on the other side, however, who,
like Hausrath (Der &osieZ PauZus, 1 1 8 [72]),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. H e may very well
have been trained in the Greek schools even if his
style ‘ has little grace to show’ ; few Jewish Greeks,
even when their Greek ‘ school education’ is beyond
question (Philo, Josephus), can surpass him in grace
or even in power over the language. T h e fact itself
that Paul was acquainted with the O T in the Greek
translation of the LXX, and knew much of this version
by heart, counts for something here; and the very
probable points of contact between him and Philo (e.g.,
Col. 11sf.) permit us to conclude that he had made
himself acquainted also with other books written in
Greek; he mnst have had a vernacular knowledge of
both Greek and Aramaic, and received both a Jewish
and a Greek educqtion.
How far this education, which he certainly after his
conversion did not care to extend, wrought as a leaven
in the formulation of that magnificent system of thought
by which he songht to fuse together Judaism and the
Gospel, it is hard to say. His universalism, his cosmo-
politanism, his doctrine of freedom, notwithstanding
cognate ideas and expressions in Greek literature, need
not have been derived thence, or at least may have
bcen only suggested there: they are the outcome of
hi’s struggle to effect an adjustment between what he
inherited and what he himself experienced.
If e.g. he mentions and correctly uses allegories and types
dra& frbm names(r Cor.10611 Gal.424), although this was a
plant that flourished on Greek ?oil, it was not there that he
made its acquaintance but in his Jewish schools of theology.
Other features of resanblance between his ideas and those of
Greek philosophers may have reached him through the same
channel.
In the main, however, Paul is original, and cannot
be understood on any other supposition. T h e ascetic,
unworldly character of his ethic corresponds to the
temper of the age he lived i n ; so also the proneness
to the mysterious, and the high estimate of knowledge,
and of the intellectual element in religion, is common to
him with his whole environment. Hence there remain,
2012
 HELMET
as representing the direct influence of Hellenism on his
theology, only minor secondary features. T h e denomi-
nation, however, of the good as n 3 K U X (Rom.
~ 71821
2 Cor. 137 Gal. 418 6 9 I Thess. 521), the emphasis
laid on virtue (dpenj ; Phil. 48), the classification of
nian as pneumatic, psychic, and sarcic, the glorifica-
tion of the Stoic moderation (ahdpKera : Phil. 4 11) ;
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 ; c p 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 BiblicuZ Essays, 1 9 9 8
rg3] ; Hicks, ' St. Paul and Hellenism,' in Studz'u
BibZica et Eccles. 41-14 ['96]).
Nor is there anything essentially different in the case
of the N T books that stand closely related to Paul.
lo. Remaining W e feel that we have moved more out
parts of NT. pf a Hebrew into a Greek atmosphere
in the Pastoral EDistles, in Hebrews-
which is beyond doubt dependent' both.in form and in
contents on the Alexandrians (e.g., 1 3 1314)-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.
It was a born Greek that wrote Acts. If his Hellenic
character does not find very marked expression it is
merely due to the nature of his w o r k ; no pure Jew
would have uttered the almost pantheistic-sounding
sentence, ' i n God we live and move and have our
being' (1728). 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 (11 - 1 8 ) , of Greek origin ; the gnosticising
tendency of John, his enthusiasm for ' t h e truth'
(without genitive), his dualism (God and the world
almost treated as absolute antithesis), his predilection
for abstractions, compel us to regard the author, Jew
by birth a s he certainly was, 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. RBville, La doctrine
du Logos dans k quatri2me hvangib, Paris, '81). Cp
J OHN [SON O F ZEBEDEE], 3 31.
W e must conclude with the following guarded thesis.
There is in the circle of ideas in the N T , in addition to
ll. Result. what is new, and what is taken over
from Judaism, much that is Greek ; hut
whether this is adopted directly from the Greek or
borrowed from the Alexandrians, who indeed aimed 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 E. Hatch, The Znpnence of Greek Ideas and Usages on
the Christian Church, 90 ; A. F. Dihne Gesch. Darstellung
derjZd.-aZex. Rel.-#hilosojhie, '34 ; C. 'Siegfried, Philo von
Alexandr.., '70, esp. p. 303fi; M. Heinze Die Lehre vowt
Logos in der griech. P h i h o j h i e , 72 ; H. Bbis, +ai sur Zes
-
origines de la #hiZosojhie ]udko alexandrine, go ; H. J.
Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der N T Theol., '97. A. J. -T. K. C.
HELMET (@a', LQip, or KJba', P3i3).
The pronunciation with initial k is sustained by the Aramaic
form of the word Kiiba'a. We may perhaps compare the word
Au66a'ath 'cup,' 4ss. Kabu'fu Ar. kub'at. KZba' occurs
in I S. 17 i8 and Ezek. 23.24 (? sed B a& Cornill), whereas we
find p i 3 in I S. 17 5 Is. 59 17 Jer. 46 4 Ezek. 27 IO 2 Ch. 26 14.
B ' s equivalent is mprrs+aAaia, a designation which is not found
in the classical period, hut is not infrequent in Polybius.
Helmets made of bronze were worn by distinguished
2013
HEMAN
men and leaders in war (as Goliath and David, I S.
17538) ; 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. I t is impossible to
determine the precise material or form, yet it is
probable that the helmet of the common Israelite
soldier consisted simply of a solid cap adorned perhaps
with horse-hair tassels as well as with a prolonged flap
or cheek-piece to cover the side of the face or ears.
Max Muller (As. u. Ear. 3 0 2 s 3 2 5 3 3 6 1 8 375-378
3 8 0 5 384) gives copious illustrations of the various
forms of helmets and caps worn by the Bedouin,
Syrian, and Hittite warriors. T h e Hittite head-gear
was mostly a round and flat covering with prolonga-
tions at the side and at the back of the head, sometimes
surmounted by a tassel. Frequently there is a band
tied behind the ear and back of the head and passing
round the forehead in front of the cap (see the figures in
As: u. Eur. pp. 232, 323) ; the LXX therefore was
guided probably by a right instinct in selecting the
term T ~ ~ I K E @ U X U ~asU the most apt term to designate it
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 i n
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.W. G REAVES ),
resembling the $&Xapa, flaps or cheek-pieces (rrapa-
yvuO16es), of the ancient Greeks.
The Cypriote helmet figured in Warre-Cornish's Concise Dict.
of Greek and Roman dntigg., 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, a s
well as adornment in the form of crests, altogether unknown
among the plainer and more modest accoutrements of Egypt
and Western Asia.
T h e helmet, like the coat of mail, is metaphorically
employed by the writer of Is. 59 17, the helmet desig-
nating salvation, an image which is borrowed by Paul
(Eph. 6 17 I Thess. 5 8). C p T URBAN . 0.C. W.
HELON (fh; XAIAUN [BAF], XEA. [L]), a Zebu-
lunite(Nu.1 9 2 7 72429 1016[PI).
HELPER ( T T A P A K ~ H T O C ) , Jn. 1416 RVmg., EV
C OMFORTER , See PARACLETE.
HEMAM (Dg'g, A I M A N [BADEL]), b. Seir the
Horite (Gen. 3622), called in I Ch. 139 H OMAM (DQiiI,
HMAN [L]). Probably with @ (cp Vg. X m f h v i n Gen.)
we should read HEMAN(see below).
HEMAN @'g, AIMAN [BAL]), one of the three
sons of M AHOL [q.v.] who were renowned for their
wisdom, I K. 431 ,[5:1] (arrav [B], qpav [A]). T h e
name appears again in I Ch. 26 (acpouav [B]) among
the sons of the Judahite Zerah. T h e same legendary
personage, however, is intended ; the clan of Zerah was
Edornite before it became Judahite (see Gen. 361317).
Possibly (as S. A. Cook suggests) the name ' Heman'
may be identified with the Edomite HEMAM (an>?);
nore probably, however, HEMANand E THAN , 2, are
30th corrupt forms of 1~98,T EMAN, one of the oldest
iistricts of Edom, sometimes used poetically as a
synonym for Edom. T h e whole force of the passage
' I K. 431) depends on this. See M AHOL .
' In post-exilic times Heman, like Ethan, gives his
lame to one of the guilds of singers (see P SALMS ).
4ccording to'the Chronicler he took part in the dedica-
:ion of the temple (z Ch. 512, RV ; c p I Ch. 1641 f:
256 [arpuver B]). A levitical genealogy is produced for
2014
 HEMATH
a i m ; he becomes the grandson of Samuel, and traces
his origin to Kohath, son of LEVI(see G ENEALOGIES
i., 5 7 ii.a, iii.c). In this connection it may be remarked
that Samuel himself is represented in I S. 1I as grand-
son of Jeroham, a shortened form of J ERAHMEEL (4.o.,
0 3 ; cp J EROHAM , I ). T h e double heading of Ps. 88
assigns that psalm first to the sons of Korah and then
to Heman (uc8up [A]) the Ezrahite. Heman was
indeed, according to I Ch. 2 6 , a Zarhite (=Ezrahite) ;
but this made him of the tribe of Judah ; as a singer he
was a Korahite. There is thus a confusion of two
representations implied in this heading.
In I Ch. 254f: (arpavcr [B] once in w. 4) a little section full
of difficulty, is devoted to Heman. H e is called the ‘king’s
seer’ (just like his ancestor Samuel, hut also like Asaph and
Jeduthun), and is said to have had fourteen sons and three
daughters.1 The difficulty lies in the words which follow ‘ the
king’s seer,’ and in the closing names in the list of Heman’s sons.
These are as follows :-Giddalti, Romamti-ezer, Joshbekashah,
Mallothi, . Hothir, Mahazioth (nfUpW’, lIpGpp1, *?k!,
r i i ~ ’ l n inin,
~, ?nbn). Ewaldz long ago suggested that these
names might be so rendered as to form, in combinatio:, a
poetical couplet,-‘ I have given great and majestic help, ‘ I
have spoken in abundance oracles.’ One word ( n f ~ p f ~he* )
omitted ; later scholars have sought to repair his omission by
rendering ‘ t o him that sat in distress ’ (see also NAMES, 0 23).
The theory was plausible as long as it was supposed that the
Chronicler was in the habit of framing uncommon names in the
interest of edification. Now however, that the evidence for
this supposition is beginning ’to break down elsewhere 3 we are
bound to be more strict in criticising Ewald’s suggesti:n. It is
safe to maintain not only that the rendering is extremely un-
natural, hut that the clause produced by combining the last
four names is execrable Hebrew. This objection cannot he raised
against the reading proposed by Kau.4 in lieu of ‘Hananiah,
Hanani, Eliathah,’ viz., 7FF 3 t ’!?? ~ ,; ’Ma-i.e., ‘Have pity
? and a comparison of z K. 1 7 2 4 shows that yin is the
upon me, 0 Yahwk, have pity upon me; thou art my God’ ;
.still we must ask, How comes such a passage to he introduced
just here, even as a marginal note? ‘ Eliathah’ is no doubt an
impossible name ; hut is there no better theory to account for it?
Certainly there is a better one. Josbbekashah ( n f ~ p pand )
Mahazioth (nrNqnn) are corruptions of the same word, and
Mallothi (?n$n) and Hothir (13nin) are corrupt fragments of
i t . Again and again we find different corruptions of the same
word side by side, and this is the case here ; or rather, there
are two words in construction, viz., n?‘p ’28. As for Giddalti
and Romamti-ezer, the former is miswritten for Gedaliah (n>$ij),
the latter for a dittographed Jerimoth (nin?y>) and Azar’el($~i~y,
a variant to Uzziel in v. 18). Gedaliah was introduced as a
correction of the corrupt Eliathah (;mK$m): ‘ Hanani’ is really
a dittographed Hananiah, and is to be omitted. In v. 5 0>1n$
p p (‘to lift up the horn’ !) is miswritteii for l’?$ lfZ\, ‘to
praise his compassion.’ ‘All these ’-viz., Bukkiah, Mattaniah,
Uzziel Shebuel (Samuel ?), Jerimoth (J,eroham ?), Hanani,
Gedadah-were the sons of Heman, the king’s seer (who pro-
phesied?) with words of God to praise his compassion. God
gave to Heman seven ( 3 ~ 3sons ~ ) and three daughters.’ The
seven sons are called, quite correctly ‘sons of Korah’ (Joshbe-
kashah etc.!), Le., members of the Korahite g$d. This is a
sign tiat the Chronicler draws here from a Midrashic source
.(cp z Ch. 2019, and WRS UTJC(9, 205, n. 2). T. K . c.
HEMATH, RV Hammath (nY,i?, MBCHMA [Bl,
~ ~ M A F[A], J [L]), ‘ t h e father of the honse of
Rechab ’ ( I Ch. 2 55T). Elsewhere Jonadab is the
‘father ’ of the Rechabites, and if any one can dispute
this title with him it is Hobab, ‘the father-in-law of
Moses.’
The Chronicler must have known of Hobab; and if so he
must mean Hobab. The easiest solution of the problem is t o
suppose that nDn is a fragment of nWD I”, ‘father-in-law of
Moses,’ and to see in this a n alhision to the phrase in Judg.
1 16. See HOBAB J ONADAB , 2, and on the Kenite connection see
RECHABITBS, KANITES. In B, I Ch. 4 12, the d v S p s p?,yaS
IBL] ( U T ‘Recah’) appear among the Calebites (pointed out
by Meyer, Ent. 147), which seenis to agree with the notice in
I ch. 2 55. T. IC. C.
HEMATH (ilpn),Am. 614, AV, RV HADXATH[~.V.].2 Ch. 32 om.
2 Cp @I. Ezra39 Neh. 109 (IO).
HEMDAN (IT?!, name-lists
‘ desirable ’ [?I, 177 ; Gray [HPN labours of in E=.-Neh. have been compiled and the harmonising
the earliest scribes will accnuut for the circumstance
that such a familiar name could ever have gone astray.
1 Klostermann, who identifies Heman and Job, sees here a 3 Not only does one expect g(n0n with daghesh)on the analogy
-coincidence with Job 42 13 (taking n : y ~ V as a dual=fourteen). of 5~>:gand Hannibaal, but such a Levitical name is unlooked
a LJrbuch derhebr. Spyache?), 672 (‘63). for ; the case of AZGAD is different.
3 See, e.g.,RIISODEIAH, BEZALEEL, ELIOENAI, HAZZELEL- 4 m,,::I or ’?a?, cp Neh. 04f: 128, also 743 (see B ANI, 3),
ZONI, JUSHAB-HESED.
4 Z A TW 6 [‘86] 260.
2015
HEPHER
641, however, suggests j?P: : cp %on, and see ABIDAN ; hut the
analogy of most of the other names in the list suggests that the
is not radical), a Horite clan-name (Gen. 36 06 ; apasa [ADL],
a8apa [El); in 11 I Ch. 141, apparently by a scribe’s error,
H A M R AAV N , AMRAM( j p ; quepwv [Bl, apa8a [AI, -ap [L]).
See DISHON.
HEMLOCK. For ( I ) dK9, r5’S. Hos. 1 0 4 , see G ALL , I
and for (2) X h vZa‘dnrih, Am. 6 12, see WORMWOOD.
HEN (OPNIC), Mt. 2 3 3 7 Lk. 1 3 3 4 ( a p t Ti.]). See
FOWLS, 2 4.
HEN (in), one of the Babylonian Jewish delegates,
temp. Zerphbabel (Zech. 6 14t). d B N A Q r has slr p i t L 7 a ; so also
R V w ’ for the kindness of the son of Zephaniah. The t x :
is plainly in disorder. Read probably, ‘Joshua the son o f Z.
(We.). See JOSIAH, 2.
HENA (VJ?), an imaginary name which, through a
scribe’s error, has found its way into the Rabshakeh’s
message to Hezekiah ( 2 K. 1 9 1 3 , ANBC [B], A I N A [A),
-ar [ L l ; Is. 3713. m a r [BK*OI’J ANAB [ K c ] , A N A
[AI, ~ N A C [Q”], A N A € [Q”g.].l T h e text stands thus,
‘Where i s . .. the king of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and
Ivvah?’ (RV). Underlying this is a witty editorial
suggestion that the existence of cities called yin and nry
respectively has passed out of mind (cp Ps. 96 [7]), for
ysq clearly means ‘ h e has driven away and over-
turned’ (so Tg., Sym.). T o look out for names re-
sembling Hena and Ivvah is waste of time. The
context further makes it plain that only one city was
mentioned. Either y3n or niy m m t therefore be omitted,
superfluous word. Probably yin was miswritten for nry,
or rather (see AVVA)for iliy. ‘ Gam.’ T. I<. C.
BSNADAD (%ln, HN&&,A [BKA, note confusions
of A A and A below]). A Levitical name (see below),
the peculiarity of which requires notice. T h e name
may be corrupt, and, if so, an easy emendation would be
>iji* jonadab, a not unnatural name for a Levite.a
Bzethgen, however (Beitr. 68, n. 4) and BDB explain as
iin-in, ‘favour of H a d a d ’ (so also § 42), cp Ph.
lyjn.3 T h e bearer of the name is a Levite, mentioned
as the father of BINNUI [ p . v . , 31 in list of wall-
builders (see N EHEMIAH , § I f., E ZRA ii., §§ 16 [I],
15d), Neh. 318 (?)va8ahu.r [BK], vapa8 [L]), D. 24
(vva8ap [L]), also as a signatory to the covenant
(EZRAi., 7),Neh. 1 0 9 [IO] (vva8ap [B”K],-Xap
[Bb.vid.], v ~ v X a 8[A], rwva8ap [L]). The name occurs
once again in the difficult passage Ezra 3 9 , on which
see Ryle, Camb. BibZe, ad Zoc. (vvaa8 [B], rwva8ap [L]).
In Ezra39 it is best, perhaps, instead of ?lrn* ’13 1’13)
to read n-~nq*>liJ; the corruption would arise through a
misunderstanding of the name Bani (as in Ezra240, etc.),
helped by the precedin6 1.n~)1 - n . As regards Henadad, it
is clear that the concluding words are out of place (cp I Esd.
557 [58], and see MADIABUN), and supported by Neh. 109 [IO] it
may he suggested that 113n q>n was a marginal gloss to Bani
whlch, on being taken into :he text, was rounded off by the
addition of the words o h O Z ’ X On’>>.
~ S. A. C.
HENNA (lg>), Cant. 114. See CAMPHIRE.
HENOCH (g>Q
; B N W X [BAL]). I. I Ch. 1 3 , AV,
z. I Ch. 133, AV, RV H ANOCH (I).
RV ENOCH
(fa.,I).
HEPHER (IlQn, o&p [BAL]). c p GATH-HEPHER.
1. A Canaanite city mentioned between Tappuah and Aphek
in Sharon (see APHEK,3); Josh. 12 17 (+ap [L]). Cp EPHRAIM,
$ 12, end.
~
1 Compare also 2 K. 18 34 (om. B, ava [A], L differs) 1
I Is. 36
The manner in which the
and 12 24 (see BINNUI,
2).
2016
 HEPHER
-2.A district in Judah (?)which fell into Solomon’s third’pre.
fecture, I K. 410 (+ap[axeiv] [Bl, +ap- [Ll). See BEN-HESED,
8 1.
HEPKER (lgn). 1. ( o @ ~ P [BKI, w@ap [L], A
has [wpla. @ € p [ O ~ ~ ~ o y I p a 0 1A] ) .name in the
Chronicler’s list of David4 heroes, I Ch. 1136. T h e
passage is plainly corrupt ; see ELIPHELET, 2.
2. ( o q k p [BAFL]). The founder, or eponym, of a
Gileadite clan, who is variously described as the son
(Josh. 172, J E , e+ep [L]) and as the great-grandson of
Manasseh (Nu. 2632 5 [d 36 f.] 27 ;, P). T h e clan
itself is called the Hepherites ( w n p , o o@p[e]l [BAFL];
Nu.2 6 3 2 ) or ‘ sons of Hepher ’ (Josh. 17 2 ) .
3. (,+aA‘[BAj, a+p [L]). The eponym of a family of Judah,
called the son of A ~ H X U( IRCh. 46).
HEPHZIBAR (R?’’s?n, usually ‘ i n whoni is m y
delight,’ 5s 12, 107 ; but analogy favours Smend‘s
rendering, ‘ in whom is delight ’ ; see, however, I ).
I. The mother of King Manasseh, -2 K. 21 I (o+aj3a [B”], a+.
[Bab] a+orpa [A] +ipa[LI). The Phcm. form 5)xrgn suggests
that kephzibah h a y he a deliberate distortion1 of the name
He hzihaal ‘delight of 6aaZ’ (Le., either of Baal, or of a
busland). ’The Chronicler (2 Ch. 33 I) passes over Manasseh‘s
mother.
2. The symbolical name of restored Zion, Is. 6 2 4 (06AVpa
ip6v [BHAQI ; cp yij eeAq7.i Mal. 3 12). Here, too, the reading
yxylln seems preferable ; Yahws is the 6aaZor ‘husband’ who
’delights’ in his bride Zion (u. 5 ; see SBOT).
T. K. C.- S. A. C.
HERALD appears three times in N T (RVmg.) as the
rendering of K H P Y ~ , for which E V has ‘preacher’
(I Ti. 27 z Ti; 1 T I IPet. 25). K~)P&JUW means simply
‘ t o proclaim ; see, e.g., Jon. 35 (a),
Mt. 31. See
MINISTRY.
In 03 xljpwf represents the N?l? EV, ‘herald,’ of Dan. 84.
On the probable philological connection of 113 (Dan. 5-29
Aph. ; ‘made proclamation’) with qpliuuetv (e 87 &rev
Ztowulav), see Bevan on Dan. 529; Kau., Grarnm. des 6iU.
Arum., 8 844; NO. GGA, ’84, p. 1019. xrjpvp also occurs in
Gen. 41 43 (see ABRECH),Ecclus. 20 15 4 Macc. 64.
HERBS. A rendering of various Hebrew terms.
I. p-p, y&@, ‘that which is green,’ ‘a garden of herbs,’
Dt.,ll IO I K. 21 2. A dinner (AV Che cp Ass. urd&, ‘to
eat ; RVmg. ‘ portion ’ of herbs) Prdv. 15 ;7.
z. xwy, ‘&3h, ‘herbage,’ including grasses and cereals, Gen.
111, etc.
3 and 4. NWY, d&’, and i*sn,&it-. See GRASS.
’ 5 and 6. nik, ‘arath (MH nprH), -2 K. 439 (ppiw0 [BAL!,
Aer6as agrestes). Elisha had just ‘come down to Gilgal In
time of famine and sent a man to gather ‘brgth ‘herbs’ or
vegetables for a pottage. The Talmud ( Y c i m E , r i 6) explains
‘ k i t h by the word gargir (q+>ij), . which means ‘ colewort ’
(emca). Royle (Kitto’s Bi6. Cyc., sa. ‘Oroth’), indeed, insists
that the ’Zr#thmust have been the fruit of some lant for which
the so-called ‘ wild gourds ’ (EV) might have fee, mistaken.
This, however, is not at all clear. The man spoken of in the
story need not have confined himself to colewort. If he found
a cucumber, or what he thought to be such, he would not reject
it. See GOURDS, WILD.
! njir 5~ (Zaps [BNAQF] ; ros Zucis; E? ‘dew
I n Is. 26 9
of herbs’), if correct, means ‘dew of lights’ (RVmg. dew of
light ’). See DEW, $ -2 6. But suggests DQ!;F, ‘their heal-
ing’ (see LIGHT). And in Is. 18 4 AV’s rendering of iiu-75) (as
ifnjC-;$y), ‘upon herbs’(Acq58s ralipa.rosp€uqppfiaF[BNAQrl;
mevldzana Zun),isgenerally abandoned ; RV gives ‘in sunshine.’
But the text probably needs emendation (see VINE).
7. Bora‘vq=Nwi, de%, xwy, ‘&6h, in @ ; ‘ grass ’ ; Heb. 6 7.
8. A&,yava=pi-,y.ir& and pi,, ye%&, in e; ‘herbs,‘ Mt.
13 32.
For n‘fig, w m m , Ex. 128, see BITTER HERBS.
T. K. C .
HERCULES, ( ‘ H P ~ K A H C [VA]), mentioned only in
2 Macc. 4 1 9 8 in connection with the games held in his
honour a t Tyre, for which JASON [P.v., 21 sent 300
drachmas of silver.* T h e contest was held every fifth
year, and was probably based upon the Olympic games
(cp further Schur. GVZ 2 21 8).Hercules was the
1 Or an abbreviated form.
2 According to Polyb. 31 20, Arr. Alex. 2 24 etc., it was custom-
ary for the colonies to send embassies to Tyre in honour of
their deity.
2017
HERES, THE ASCENT O F
Greek name for the’Tyrian Melkarthl ( n i p k , ;.e., 15n
nip, king of the city), whence the Greek Melikertes (see
Roscher, Lex., s.v.). See BAAL, 8 6, HELLEN~SM,
$5.
HERD (l@), Ex. 1 0 9 ; Herdsman(X)l), Gen. 137.
See CATTLE, $8 za 6.
HERES, CITY OF, EVmP., or, CITY OF DESTRUCTION,
Ev ; (D3gg l’v ; SO M T , Pesh.) ; or, ClTY OF T H E
S UN, E V second margin (Din? lp; so Symm., Vg.,
Talm., Mlmi@th I I O a, Saad. ,z and some Heb. MSS).
or, ‘city of righteousness’ ( P l Y 3 l+J)[?I, nohlc
A C E A ~ K [BKAQI’] ; APEC Aq., Theod., may be either
Dln or D l n ) . The name which was to be given a t a
future day to one of five cities in Egypt, where Hebrew
would be spoken and t h e Jewish religion practised (Is.
19 18).
Opinion is much divided as to the reading of the name,
and as to the date of the section to which the clause
containing the name belongs. Some critics (Dillmann,
Guthe) even hold that the clause is a later addition to
the section ; this, however, seems a n unnecessary refine-
ment of criticism, suggested by a wish to push the date
of the rest of the chapter a s high u p as possible.
Considering that there is nothing in vv. 18-25 that is
decidedly favourable, and much that is adverse, to the
authorship of Isaiah, and that the section only becomes
fully intelligible in the light of the history of the Greek
period, ‘it is best t o interpret v. 176 as the translation of
a fact of history into the language of prophecy. The
meaning of the verse seems to be that early in the
Greek period there were to be in Egypt colonies
of Jewish worshippers of Yahwk. among whom the
‘language of Canaan‘ was not exchanged for Greek,
and that one of them would be settled in the city of
Heres, or (shall we say?) of Heres. Probably Heres,
not Heres, is the right reading; it is Heliopolis,
the city of the Sun-god, that is meant-the city which
before the foundation of Alexandria was perhaps best
known to the Jews (see O N ). T h e rare word ~isi ?
preferred to BJQ? (contrast Jeremiah‘s procedure, if
‘ Beth-shemesh ‘ in Jer. 4 3 1 3 is correct). T h e reading
Heres ( i e . , destruction) is no doubt a n intentional
alteration of Heres (a few MSS even read q =
anathema), just as Timnath-heres (Judg. 2 9 ) is altered
into Timnath-serah in Josh. 19 50 24 30.
e ’ s reading ‘city of Zedek‘ (i.e., ‘city of righteousness’),
though it is defended by Geiger [Urschr. 791, Bredenk., Guthe,
and half accepted by Dillmann, is very improbable, and may seem
to have arisen out of a desire for a distinct prediction of the temple
of Onias at Leontopolis (see Jos. A n t . xiii. 3 I ) . pl: will then
mean ‘legal correctness’ (cp 7 i x *nxI, Ps.51-21); the Oneion
was not at first regarded with dislike in Palestine. But ~ * ’am8 s
[am, ~ c . a ] suggests the possibility that -ex is a later addition
to aud. which .~ Derhaps arose throwh transposition of letters ;
are8 in fact suggests 1 D n or ion. On the crctical questions see
further Che. Intr. Zs. p. xxvi IOZ A, Kittel’s revision of bill-
mann’s Jesaia (‘98), and Marti’s commentary. To recapitulate
fantastic theories which have small claim on consideration would
lead the reader away from’the main point (on which cp HIGH
PLACE, 3 9, n.). T. K. C.
HERES, THE ASCENT OF. So RV, in Judg. 8 13,
to define the road which Gideon took in returning to
Succoth from the battlefield. RV partly follows certain
versions, which read D i n ? a>ggp for dinn n>yr&
(MT). This, however, is not enough; we d o not
expect a place-name here. o’!?? (Symm., ’I’heod.)
would be a slight improvement.
Most probably, however, the true reading is P’lno
‘he devoted the host to destruction,’-originally a marginal
correction of l’yno (v. 1-2, end). ?’?.n? is in fact a weak
1 So especially CIS 1no. 122,where for i s $yx ‘n the parallel
Gr. has $paxAez &ppx~ydre~ ; cp Baethg. Beitr. ml:
2 The Oxford MS has distinctly D i n $ N n3ip. Derenbourg,
however emends Din into in, and conjectures that Saad. gave
thi: work the Arabicizing sense of ‘ crushing ’ ( Z A T W Q37).
0 On the supposed reading r . qepes (in the Complutensian
edition), see Del. on Isaiah, Z.C.
2018
 HERES, MOUNT
expression (cp Jos. A d . v. 6 5, bcc'q40eLpc). For the form of the
correction cp I K. 5 3 [4231, where the last two words are a cor-
rection of a preceding word see FOWL FATTED.
a's readings are &&.voSe; (76s rrapa&os))'Apes[B, omitting
an accidental repetition], drrb avaj3dusos apes [AL]. As.,d:h
dirb dvap. r o c Spupoir (reading win,) Symm. ... TOY opov,
Theod. ... bpour (see Field with his' quotation from Jerome
in the note), Vg. ante solis ortsm, Tg. N$n@ $&~'pN) ?y, 'be-
fore sunrise.' T. K. C.
HERES, MOUNT (!J>n-l;?). Mentioned with
Aijalon and Shaalbim as still occupied by the Amorites,
Judg. l34f: Almost certainly i n is a scribe's error for
v y , so that we should read Ir - heres = IR -SHEMESH.
Budde in his commentary overlooks this, but makes
the valuable suggestion that Ir-heres, Har-heres (?),
and B ETH - SHEMESH [q.-v., I ] may all be identified with
' Bit-Ninib in the district of Jerusalem' (Am. Tal.
183 14f.). If this be so @B may be right and we can
connect Heres with ' the gate Harsith ' of Jer. 192. W e
niny even go further and suggest as a possibility that
D i n was originally vocalised differently and was a
Hebraised form of Ural, a synonym of the ASS. god
Ninib (worshipped at Bit-Ninib), who is primarily the
fierce morning sun (see Jensen, KosmoZ. 458).
PBAL ( i v r+d p c ~ )roc p u p u r v & v o s = D ~ ~(an
l ~ ~anachronism,
see MYRTLE); cod. 58 rov Gpupiuvos (mg. rf 6 u r p a ~ i r 8 e r ) =
t f l F l n 2 ; cp Moore. reads rf 6 u r p a K d k (Dln=Vln).
Conder mentions the ruins of Ibn Harith in the vale of Aijalon.
Cp TIMNATH-HERES. T. K. C.
HERESH (d??: p a p a i ~ AP I , apsc [A]; ~ P H C the Corinthians, ' in order that they who are approve&
[L]), an Asaphite Levite ; I Ch. 915t.
The name has no 1 prefixed to it ; Vg. therefore gives ' car.
pentarius'(i?$, most improbably. A comparison of Neh. 11 17
(crit. emend.) shows that i i j i win (not found in the list in
Neh.) should be ddl, ' the leader in the song of praise.'
The wprds should have stood after 'Mattaniah ... son of word with the force of a tevminus technicus, otherwise
Asaph. T. K. C.
HERESY, HERETIC, SECT. ' Heresy ' and ' sect '
in EV both represent alpeclc.
For ' heresy' in AV see Acts 24 14. for 'heresies ' I Cor. 11 19
Gal. 5 20 2 Pet. 2 I. For 'sect ' see h s 5 17 15 5 44 5 26 5 28 z z
and mg. of I Cor. 1119. RV,'however, gives ' a sect' in Act;
.
24 14 (mg. 'heresy ') ; 'factions ' in I Cor. 1119 mg. ' parties
it? Gal. 5 20 mg. ; 'sects' in 2 Pet. 2 I mg. Both Ab and,RV
give ' heretical' for aipercK6s in Tit. 3 I O ; RVw. 'factious.
w e shall treat afpeurs (heresy) and a i p e m d s (heretical)
here, from a phraseological and exegetical point of
1, Biblical use vf" ; see further H ELLENISM , 5 6f.
of afpEoLs. aipeuts occurs several times in the
LXX (see, e.g., Lev. 22 18 I Macc.
830); a l p ~ t ~neither 6 ~ in the LXX nor in classical
writers (but see Suicer). In the O T a2peuts means
'free choice' ; but in classical literature it has also,
in pre-Christian times, the more specialised sense of
' freely chosen opinion.' Thus afpeurr 'AKa6Vpakj is
equivalent to 'the Platonic philosophy '-;.e., Platonism.
Only a short step was needed to designate the holders
-in the aggregate-of such a n opinion also as a afpeurs,
though, of course, without any flavour of censure,
merely in the sense of a school or party. It is in this
sense of the word that Josephus (Ant. xiii. 5 9 , 171) already reached this stage in z Pet. 2 I where there is a
describes the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes
as the three alpduets of the Jews since the Maccadean
period, ' who had different opinions concerning human
actions.' Following the same usage, Acts 5 17 speaks
of the afpeuts of the Sadducees and 155 (26s) of that of
the Pharisees, whilst in 24514 2822 theword is employed
to denote the followers of Christ-this last, it is true,
only in the mouths of unbelieving Jews. Wherever in
the first century of Christianity, whether in Jerusalem or
in Rome, Jewish believers in the Messiah made their
appearance, and rallied to their freely chosen ideal with
a zeal and a claim of separateness recalling in some
respects the manner of the Essenes, they would neces-
sarily appear to their fellow-Jews in the light of a new
afppaurs. T h e accent of superciliousness which we note
when Paul's accusers at C m a r e a speak of him as a
2019
HERESY, HERETIC, SECT
leader of the aYpears of the Nazarenes does not lie om
the word afpeurs but on the genitive TGV Nalwpaiwv,
'of the Nazarenes,' the deluded followers of the false
Messiah f r o m ~despised Galilee (see N AZARETH ). If,
on the other hand, Paul in Acts2414l in his answer t o
Tertullus substitutes the word 666s, 'way,' ' doctrine,'
4 religion,' for a?peurs, it is not because the latter word
is in itself a name of reproach, but because he regards
himself as representing, not a new afpeurs-and, there-
fore, at best, only a portion of the people of God-but
the nation of Israel as a whole in so far as it can claim
this name.
In the genuine Pauline epistles the word afpeuts is
met with twice : in Gal. 5 20, where in the list of the
' works of the flesh' it is enumerated between 6rXomuuiac
[ ' divisions ') and @86vor ( ' envyings '), and in I Cor.
1119, where it is used as synonymous with U X ~ U ~ U T U .
The new religion inscribed on its banner the motto
'All ye are one in Christ Jesus,' and accordingly
regarded with the liveliest aversion any breaking-up into,
narrower circles, and every tendency to give prominence
to individual opinions of the school. This spirit had
already asserted itself to such an extent that the alpduer~
or divergent views, the existence of which to a Greek
philosopher would probably have betokened a fresh a n d
vigorous intellectual life, were deprecated as manifesta-
tions of grave and most disquieting import. I t is only
in a tone of bitter irony that the apostle ( I Cor. 1119)
says ' there must needs be aip4uers (or factions) ' among
among them may be made manifest.' Here he has in
view only those factions turning on personal questions
which were so specially conspicuous in the church life of
Corinth- not false doctrines or the formation of sects
occasioned by For these there is as yet n o
Paul, who (especially in Galatia and in Colosse) had a
hard enough battle to fight against false teachers, would
assuredly have made use of it somewhere in that con-
nection. T o him afpeurs is hateful just as schism
(uxlupa) and faction ( ~ L X O U T U U are-in~~) other words,
only as interfering with that oneness amongst the
members which is so essential to the existence of
Christianity.
In the post-apostolic age, as early as the time of
Ignatius and Justin, as a result of the catholic tendencies
2. Use inpost- of the period, the word ai'peurs be-
apostolic age. came the terminus technicus for hetero-
doxy or 'heresy '- for all doctrine
that departs from ihe true faith, as well as for the
company of the maintainers of such doctrine. Those
who held to the church found it impossible to think of
such departures as having their origin in anything
but arbitrary self-will, the church being by revelation in
possession of the entire truth attainable in the present
seon. Hence Tertullian's definition (De p e s c r . her.
6 ) , ' adulterse doctrinse, hsereses d i c t e Grseca voce ex
interpretatione electionis qua quis sive a d instituendas
sive a d suscipiendas eas utitur.' T h e word has
prediction of false teachers who shall bring in a l p t h t s
ci?rwheias--' destructive heresies ' (RV)-by reason of
which the way of truth (cp Acts 2414) shall be evil
spoken of. Whether aipQuers be taken here in the
sense of 'separations' or in that of 'sects or (better
-note ?rapparudyetv) of ' incorrect doctrines ' they are,
in the mind of this writer, @so facto and as such,
1 [RV renders 'After the Way which they call a sect, so serve
I the God of oAr fathers,' i.e., ' I serve the same God as my
accusers, but according to a form of religion (717, Judg. 2 22
Jer. 32 39) which is simpler and tmer than theirs.' Jesus of
Nazareth, in other words, is a reformer of Judaism, a restore:
of the primitive religion of Israel. The 'sect of the Nazarenes
therefoie deserves toleration by the Romans as belonging to the
great Jewish body.]
u x2' uChrys. s Goyp&uw, dM& rds TGV
0; rahas h i y o v ~ d r&v
p t o v Todrwv.
2020
 HERETH
something abominable, a work of falsehood; and the
additional word ci7rwheias is simply the expression of
his belief that hell, or everlasting destruction ( RVmg.
‘sects of perdition’) is their destined end. In like
manner also Tit. 3 10 enjoins that a factions man
( ~ i p e ~ t r t dvOpw?ros)
bs is to be shunned if a repeated effort
to bring him to a better state of mind has failed; in
that case he is an irreclaimable sinner, self-condemned ;
cp EXCOMMUNICATION. This employment of a n
adjective U ~ ~ C T L Kshows~ S merely (cp uipeutGsar, Just.
D i d , c. Tryph. So) how firmly, even at that early
date, the idea of all that is ungodly and against the
church had attached itself to the word al’peurr ; a n idea
which, further heightened by the distinction drawn
between heresy and schism, remains to this day insepar-
ably bound up with it in ecclesiastical phraseology.
On the New Heb. term P’p? (nrininr), the origin and exact
references of which are disputed, hut which many ( e g . ,
Schechter, Studies in]uduism [‘96], 420) render ‘ heretics,’see
H. Krans Beg@ und Form der Htiresie nach Talmud u.
Alidrash k96) ; Friedlznder, Der vorchristliche j2d. Mono-
theismus (‘98) ; Schiirer, G/Yand TLZ, 24 167# (‘99).
A. J.
HERETH (n72YJ) 1 S. 2 2 5 RV, AV HARETH(q.V.).
HERMAS ( s p ~ [Ti.
~ cWH], an abbreviated name)
is one of five-Hermes being another- who ‘ with the
brethren that are with them’ are saluted in Rom. 1614
(cp R OMANS , $5 4 , I O ). They seem to have been heads
of Christian households, or perhaps class-leaders of
some sort.
The names Hermas and Hermes occur twice in inscriptions
belonging to the province of Asia (the former in CZG 2 2826,
the latter in CIG 2 2747 2825). In the lists of the seventy
apostles by the Pseudo-Dorotheus and Pseudo -Hippolytus,
Hermas figures as bishop of Philippi. No one any longer sup-
poses that he was the author of the Shepherd of Hermas,
the date of which is about 140 A.D., though from Origen (in
Ej. ad Rom.)onwards church-writ?rs have expressed this view,
and accordingly have given that allegorical work a place among
the writings of the apostolical fathers or immediate disciples of
the apostles. Against this view see Dict. Chr. Biog., and
Lipsius’ ‘Hermas,’ Bi6. Lex. 3 2 0 8
HERMES ( e p ~ [Ti.WH])
~ c is one of five who are
mentioned together in Ram. 1 6 x 4 (cp R OMANS , $5 4,
IO).
The name is of frequent occurrence among slaves, especially
members of the imperial household of the first century. In
Pseudo-Dorothens and Pseudo-Hippolytus Hermes is called
bishop of Dalmatia. Cp HERMAS.
HERMOGENES (EpMOrENHC [Ti. W H ] ) is men-
tioned in 2 Tim. l i s t , ‘ All that are in Asia turned
away from me, of whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.’
Nothing is really known of him, though the ‘ list of the
seventy disciples of our Lord ’ by the Pseudo-Dorotheus
of Tyre ( Chr. Pusch., Bonn ed. 2121)makes him bishop
of Megara, while in the apocryphal Acts of Puul and
The& he appears (with Demas) as a hypocritical fellow-
traveller of Paul.
A certain Hermogenes, a magician, figures largely along with
his disciple Philetus in the Apocryphal Pu+sioJaco6i Majoris;
the names are obviously borrowed from z Tim. 115 2 17, and the
story is a commonplace narrative of magical wonders (see
Lipsius, Apocr. Aj.-Gesch. 3 ZOI&).
HERMON (iifSln, ‘belonging to, or connected with,
a sanctuary,’ AEPMWN [BAFL]), the great mountain-
buttress of Antilibanus ; cp S ENIR , SIRION, S ION.
‘Mount Hermon’ (pny 12) occurs in Dt.38j: ( a p p o v [BXl
in v. 9) Josh.1117 121 5 135,11 I Ch.523 (I1 ‘Baal-hermon and
Senir’); Hermon’ alone in Josh. 113 (r;lv
1. References. +VE”.OV [Bl), Ps. 8912 1131 ( a r p p w v [Bl), 1333,
Cant. 48 ( e p p o v [B] c p p ~ v ~ [ ~ ][BKARTI)
ip
(where ‘ Senir ’ and ‘ Hermon ’ are combined). In Judg. 3 3 we
find ‘ Mount Baal-hermon’ ; but comparing Josh. 1117 (where
‘.Baal-gad in the valley of the Lebanon at the foot of Mt.
Hermon’ appears as the N. boundary of Israel), Budde rightly
reads ‘the Hittites that dwelt from Baal-gad which is at the
foot of Mt. Hermon to the approach to Hamath ‘ (cp also Josh.
127). As the ideal N. houndarv of Israel Mt. Hermon auuears
ag& in Dt.38 (cp Josh. 1 2 5)
__
The poetical references to Hermon are not very many ; and
those which apparently occur need careful testing. Ps. 42 6 171
(‘the Hermons’ RV, AV HERMONITES) is considered under
2021
HERMON
M IZAR H ILL O F ‘ Ps. 89 12 1131 under TABOR (i.) ’ Ps. 1333 under
D E W , ~ Z ( C~ a) ;k 4 8 u n d e r A I~ andC&cLEs
~~~ g 15(d).
. -
In the first two of these nassases “H!xmonim’and ‘kermon’
are not genuine.
That Ezekiel (275) should prefer the name ‘Senir’ to that of
‘Hermon’ is remarkable; hut we must remember that the OT
passages in which ‘Hermon’ occurs do not (unless Judg.33 he
an exception) represent a t all an early period. ~ ~ ~
In the N T ‘ Hermon ’ is not mentioned ; but neither is
Lebanon ; and ‘ Gerizim ’ is only referred to in John 4 .of.
as ‘ this mountain.’ I t would be delightful to think that
Hermon was the ‘ high mountain ’ of the Transfiguration-
scene ; but though, as Stanley (SP399) remarks, ‘ high
upon its southern slopes there must be many a point
where the disciples could be taken “ a p a r t by them-
selves,’” and Keim (/em won Nus. 2585) sees no
difficulty in supposing that the narrator thought of one
of the spurs of Hermon, good reason has been urged by
Weiss for placing the scene in Christ’s usual haunts in
the NW. of the Sea of Galilee (Leben /em, 2 3 3 1 J ) .
W e have still to notice a strange reference to Hermon
in the Book of Enoch (66), where the wicked angels are
2, Sanctity. said to have descended in the days of
Jared ( ‘ descent ’) on the summit of Mt.
Hermon, and to have called it Hermon, because of the
oaths which they had sworn upon it. This is a proof
of the persistent sacredness of Mt. Hermon, and reminds
us of the statement of Philo of Byblus that the giants
were named after the mountains of Syria- Casion
(Mt. Casius), Libanus, Antilibanus (Hermon) and
BpaOu=diiJ (?). A notable temple on the summit is
referred to by Eusebius and J e r o m (OS 2 1 7 3 9 ; 9021)
as the seat of pagan worship, and recent exploration has
confirmed this statement. Not only have the ruins of
many Roman temples been discovered round the base
and sides of the mountain, but also on its highest crag
there are the traces of an open-air sanctuary, and close
by on the plateau is an underground chamber, hewn in
the rock, perhaps a Mithrreum.’
Mount Hermon has in fact three craggy summits,
which rise out of a plateau ; hence it is usual to explain
3, Description, the plural noun ‘ Hermonim ’ in
Ps. 426 r71. ‘Mount,’ which is a
Hebraistic expression, means- in this phrase a range of
mountains, stretching from SW. to NE., and separated
from Antilibanus by a ravine in the N. Its modern
names are /e&-Z e&&‘,+, ‘the mountain of the (white-
haired) old man,’ and / e b d &-The& d
the snow
mountain.’ T h e latter agrees with the appellation
found in the Targum ( d n ?la), and is specially suitable,
Hermon being widely visible in Palestine. I t is rare for
the snow to disappear entirely, and hence, as a rule,
snow from Hermon is still, as in Jerome’s time (note on
Prov. 25 13), used for cooling drinks in the hot weather.
Hermon is 9166 feet above the sea-level. As one
approaches it from the S., it seems to swell up like a
vast dome : but it is also visible in the Jordan Valley
nearly as far south as Jericho. T h e lower part of the
mountain, says Conder,2 consists of Nubinn sandstone,
which appears also in the Lebanon. The upper part is
‘ a very rugged and barren dome of hard grey fossiliferous
dolomitic limestone. ’ Snow and frost combined have
produced ‘ a sort of shingle which covers the higher
slopes between the rocks and pinnacles of the mountain
side.’ Conder and Tristram give pleasing descriptions
of the vegetation on the lower slopes ; both the fauna
and the flora present a remarkable contrast to those of
the Jordan Valley, at the foot of the mountain. On the
N. and the W . slopes are vineyards and orchards, which,
however, are liable to visits from Syrian bears. On the
S . , the main source of the Jordan bursts from its cavern
(see CACSAREA, § 7). T h e oak and the poplar are the
chief trees on the lower slopes ; higher up, the Aleppo
pine is conspicuous. Nor must we forget the fanious
‘ dew of Hermon.’ So abundant is the moisture of the
night-mist on Hermon that those who encamp there
1 Conder, in Smith’s DBF), 13405. 2 16id.
2022