ha: The fifth letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "h." It came also to be used for the number 5. For name, etc., see ALPHABET .
hed (ro'-sh, Aramaic re'sh, and in special sense gulgoleth, literally, "skull," "cut-off head" (1 Ch 10:10), whence Golgotha (Mt 27:33; Mk 15:22; Jn 19:17); mera'ashah, literally, "head-rest," "pillow," "bolster" (1 Ki 19:6); qodhqodh, literally, crown of the head (Dt 28:35; 33:16,20; 2 Sam 14:25; Isa 3:17; Jer 48:45); barzel, "the head of an axe" (Dt 19:5, the Revised Version margin "iron"; 2 Ki 6:5); lehabhah, lahebheth, "the head of a spear" (1 Sam 17:7); kephale): The first-mentioned Hebrew word and its Aramaic form are found frequently in their literal as well as metaphorical sense. We may distinguish the following meanings:
By a slight extension of meaning, "head" occasionally stands for the person itself. This is the case in all passages where evil is said to return or to be requited upon the head of a person (see below).
The word is also used in connection with the serpent's head (Gen 3:15), the head of the sacrificial ram, bullock and goat (Ex 29:10,15,19; Lev 4:4,24), the head of leviathan (Job 41:7 (Hebrew 40:31)).
It is used also as representing the top or summit of a thing, as the capital of column or pillar (Ex 36:38; 38:28; 2 Ch 3:15); of mountains (Ex 19:20; Nu 21:20; Jdg 9:7; Am 1:2; 9:3); of a scepter (Est 5:2); of a ladder (Gen 28:12); of a tower (Gen 11:4).
As a fourth meaning the word occurs (Prov 8:23; Eccl 3:11; Isa 41:4) in the sense of beginning of months (Ex 12:2), of rivers (Gen 2:10), of streets or roads (Isa 51:20; Ezek 16:25; 21:21).
As a leader, prince, chief, chieftain, captain (or as an adjective, with the meaning of foremost, uppermost), originally: "he that stands at the head"; compare "God is with us at our head" (2 Ch 13:12); "Knowest thou that Yahweh will take away thy master from thy head?" (2 Ki 2:3); "head-stone" the Revised Version (British and American) "top stone," i.e. the upper-most stone (Zec 4:7).
Israel is called the head of nations (Dt 28:13); "The head (capital) of Syria is Damascus, and the head (prince) of Damascus is Rezin" (Isa 7:8); "heads of their fathers' houses," i.e. elders of the clans (Ex 6:14); compare "heads of tribes" (Dt 1:15), also "captain," literally, head (Nu 14:4; Dt 1:15; 1 Ch 11:42; Neh 9:17). The phrase "head and tail" (Isa 9:14; 19:15) is explained by the rabbis as meaning the nobles and the commons among the people; compare "palm-branch and rush" (Isa 9:14), "hair of the feet .... and beard" (Isa 7:20), but compare also Isa 9:15. In the New Testament we find the remarkable statement of Christ being "the head of the church" (Eph 1:22; 5:23), "head of every man" (1 Cor 11:3), "head of all principality and power" (Col 2:10), "head of the body, the church" (Col 1:18; compare Eph 4:15). The context of 1 Cor 11:3 is very instructive to a true understanding of this expression: "I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (compare Eph 5:23). Here, clearly, reference is had to the lordship of Christ over His church, not to the oneness of Christ and His church, while in Eph 4:16 the dependence of the church upon Christ is spoken of. These passages should not therefore be pressed to include the idea of Christ being the intellectual center, the brain of His people, from whence the members are passively governed, for to the Jewish mind the heart was the seat of the intellect, not the head.
See HEART .
As the head is the most essential part of physical man, calamity and blessing are said to come upon the head of a person (Gen 49:26; Dt 33:16; Jdg 9:57; 1 Sam 25:39; 2 Ch 6:23; Ezek 9:10; 11:21; 16:43; 22:31). For this reason hands are placed upon the head of a person on which blessings are being invoked (Gen 48:14,17,18; Mt 19:15) and upon the sacrificial animal upon which sins are laid (Ex 29:15; Lev 1:4; 4:29,33). Responsibility for a deed is also said to rest on the head of the doer (2 Sam 1:16; 3:29; 1 Ki 8:32; Ps 7:16; Acts 18:6). The Bible teaches us to return good for evil (Mt 5:44), or in the very idiomatic Hebrew style, to "heap coals of fire upon (the) head" of the adversary (Prov 25:22; Rom 12:20). This phrase is dark as to its origin, but quite clear as to its meaning and application (compare Rom 12:17,19,21). The Jew was inclined to swear by his head (Mt 5:36), as the modern Oriental swears by his beard. The head is said to be under a vow (Nu 6:18,19; Acts 18:18; 21:23), because the Nazirite vow could readily be recognized by the head.
There are numerous idiomatic expressions connected with the head, of which we enumerate the following: "the hoary head" designates old age (see HAIR ); "to round the corners of the head," etc. (Lev 19:27; compare also Dt 14:1; Am 8:10), probably refers to the shaving of the side locks or the whole scalp among heathen nations, which was often done in idolatrous shrines or in token of initiation into the service of an idol. It was therefore forbidden to Israel, and its rigid observance gave rise to the peculiar Jewish custom of wearing long side locks (see HAIR ). "Anointing the head" (Ps 23:5; 92:10; Heb 1:9) was a sign of joy and hospitality, while the "covering of the head" (2 Sam 15:30; Est 6:12; Jer 14:3), "putting the hand upon the head" (2 Sam 13:19) and putting earth, dust or ashes upon it (Josh 7:6; 1 Sam 4:12; 2 Sam 12; 13:19; Lam 2:10; compare Am 2:7) were expressive of sadness, grief, deep shame and mourning. In Est 7:8 Haman's face is covered as a condemned criminal, or as one who has been utterly put to shame, and who has nothing more to say for his life.
In this connection the Pauline injunction as to the veiling of women in the public gatherings of the Christians (1 Cor 11:5), while men were instructed to appear bareheaded, must be mentioned. This is diametrically opposed to the Jewish custom, according to which men wore the head covered by the Tallith or prayer shawl, while women were considered sufficiently covered by their long hair (1 Cor 11:15). The apostle here simply commends a Greek custom for the congregation residing among Greek populations; in other words, he recommends obedience to local standards of decency and good order.
"To bruise the head" (Gen 3:15) means to injure gravely; "to smite through the head" (Ps 68:21) is synonymous with complete destruction. "To shake or wag the head" (Ps 22:7; 44:14; 64:8; Jer 18:16; 48:27; Lam 2:15; Mt 27:39; Mk 15:29) conveys the meaning of open derision and contempt. "To bow down the head" (Isa 58:5) indicates humility, sadness and mourning, but it may also be a mere pretense for piety. (Sirach 19:26).
H. L. E. Luering
hed'-band.
See DRESS .
hed'dres.
See DRESS .
hed'-ston.
See CORNER-STONE .
hed'-strong.
See HEADY .
hed'-tir.
hed'i: The translation in the King James Version of propetes, "falling forward," trop. "prone," "ready to do anything," "precipitate," "headlong" (2 Tim 3:4, "heady, high-minded," etc., the Revised Version (British and American) "headstrong"; in Acts 19:36, the only other place in the New Testament where propetes occurs, the King James Version has "rashly," the Revised Version (British and American) "rash"). "Headstrong signifies strong in the head or the mind, and heady, full of one's own head" (Crabb, English Synonyms). "Heady confidence promises victory without contest" (Johnson).
hel (rapha'; therapeuo, iaomai, diasozo): The English word is connected with the Anglo-Saxon hoelan, and is used in several senses: (1) Lit., in its meaning of making whole or well, as in Eccl 3:3. In this way it occurs in prayers for restoration to health (Nu 12:13; Ps 6:2; Jer 17:14); and also in declarations as to God's power to restore to health (Dt 32:39; 2 Ki 20:5-8). (2) Metaphorically it is applied to the restoration of the soul to spiritual health and to the repair of the injuries caused by sin (Ps 41:4; Jer 30:17). (3) The restoration and deliverance of the afflicted land is expressed by it in 2 Ch 7:14; Isa 19:22. (4) It is applied to the forgiveness of sin (Jer 3:22).
In the New Testament, therapeuo is used 10 times in describing our Lord's miracles, and is translated "heal." Iaomai is used to express spiritual healing (Mt 13:15; Lk 5:17; Jn 12:40), and also of curing bodily disease (Jn 4:47). Diasozo, meaning "to heal thoroughly," is used in Lk 7:3 the King James Version where the Revised Version (British and American) renders it "save." The act of healing is called iasis twice, in Acts 4:22,30; sozo, to save or deliver, is translated "made whole" by the Revised Version (British and American) in Mk 5:23; Lk 8:36; Acts 14:9, but is "healed" in the King James Version. Conversely "made whole" the King James Version in Mt 15:28 is replaced by "healed" in the Revised Version (British and American).
Healed is used 33 times in the Old Testament as the rendering of the same Hebrew word, and in the same variety of senses. It is also used of purification for an offense or breach of the ceremonial law (2 Ch 30:20); and to express the purification of water which had caused disease (2 Ki 2:21,22). Figuratively, the expression "healed slightly" (the English Revised Version "lightly") is used to describe the futile efforts of the false prophets and priests to remedy the backsliding of Israel (Jer 6:14; 8:11); here the word for "slightly" is the contemptuous term, qalal, which means despicably or insignificantly. In Ezek 30:21, the word "healed" is the rendering of the feminine passive participle, rephu'ah and is better translated in the Revised Version (British and American) "apply healing medicines." In the New Testament "healed" usually occurs in connection with the miracles of our Lord and the apostles. Here it is worthy of note that Luke more frequently uses the verb iaomai than therapeuo, in the proportion of 17 to 4, while in Matthew and Mark the proportion is 4 to 8.
Healer (chabhash) occurs once in Isa 3:7; the word literally means a "wrapper up" or "bandager."
Alexander Macalister
hel'-ing (marpe', te`alah, kehah): In the Old Testament this word is always used in its figurative sense; marpe', which literally means "a cure," is used in Jer 14:19 twice, and in Mal 4:2; te`alah, which literally means "an irrigation canal," here means something applied externally, as a plaster, in which sense it is used metaphorically in Jer 30:13; kehah occurs only in Nah 3:19 the King James Version and is translated "assuagings" in the Revised Version (British and American).
In the New Testament 5 times the verb is therapeuo; once (Acts 10:38) iaomai; in the other passages it is either iama, as in 1 Cor 12:9-30, or iasis, as in Acts 4:22, derivatives from this verb
(charismata iamaton): Among the "spiritual gifts" enumerated in 1 Cor 12:4-11,28 are included "gifts of healings." See SPIRITUAL GIFTS . The subject has risen into much prominence of recent years, and so calls for separate treatment. The points to be considered are: (1) the New Testament facts, (2) the nature of the gifts, (3) their permanence in the church.
The Gospels abundantly show that the ministry of Christ Himself was one of healing no less than of teaching (compare Mk 1:14 f with 1:32-34). When He sent forth the Twelve (Mk 6:7,13) and the Seventy (Lk 10:1,9), it was not only to preach the Kingdom of God but to heal the sick. The inauthentic conclusion of Mark's Gospel, if it does not preserve words actually used by Christ Himself, bears witness at all events to the traditional belief of the early church that after His departure from the world His disciples would still possess the gift of healing. The Book of Acts furnishes plentiful evidence of the exercise of this gift by apostles and other prominent men in the primitive church (Acts 3:7 f; 5:12-16; 8:7; 19:12; 28:8 f), and the Epistle of James refers to a ministry of healing carried on by the elders of a local church acting in their collective capacity (Jas 5:14 f). But Paul in this passage speaks of "gifts of healings" (the plural "healings" apparently refers to the variety of ailments that were cured) as being distributed along with other spiritual gifts among the ordinary members of the church. There were men, it would seem, who occupied no official position in the community, and who might not otherwise be distinguished among their fellow-members, on whom this special charisma of healing had been bestowed.
On this subject the New Testament furnishes no direct information, but it supplies evidence from which conclusions may be drawn. We notice that the exercise of the gift is ordinarily conditional on the faith of the recipient of the blessing (Mk 6:5,6; 10:52; Acts 14:9)--faith not only in God but in the human agent (Acts 3:4 ff; 5:15; 9:17). The healer himself is a person of great faith (Mt 17:19 f), while his power of inspiring the patient with confidence points to the possession of strong, magnetic personality. The diseases cured appear for the most part to have been not organic but functional; and many of them would now be classed as nervous disorders. The conclusion from these data is that the gifts of healing to which Paul alludes were not miraculous endowments, but natural therapeutic faculties raised to their highest power by Christian faith.
Modern psychology, by its revelation of the marvels of the subliminal self or subconscious mind and the power of "suggestion," shows how it is possible for one man to lay his hand on the very springs of personal life in another, and so discloses the psychical basis of the gift of healing. The medical science of our time, by its recognition of the dependence of the physical upon the spiritual, of the control of the bodily functions by the subconscious self, and of the physician's ability by means of suggestion, whether waking or hypnotic, to influence the subconscious soul and set free the healing powers of Nature, provides the physiological basis. And may we not add that many incontestable cases of Christian faith-cure (take as a type the well-known instance in which Luther at Weimar "tore Melanchthon," as the latter put it, "out of the very jaws of death"; see RE ,XII , 520) furnish the religious basis, and prove that faith in God, working through the soul upon the body, is the mightiest of all healing influences, and that one who by his own faith and sympathy and force of personality can stir up faith in others may exercise by God's blessing the power of healing diseases?
3. Permanence of Healing Gifts in the Church:
There is abundant evidence that in the early centuries the gifts of healing were still claimed and practiced within the church (Justin, Apol. ii.6; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. ii. 32, 4; Tertullian, Apol. xxiii; Origen, Contra Celsum, vii.4). The free exercise of these gifts gradually ceased, partly, no doubt, through loss of the early faith and spirituality, but partly through the growth of an ascetic temper which ignored Christ's gospel for the body and tended to the view that pain and sickness are the indispensable ministers of His gospel for the soul. All down the history of the church, however, there have been notable personalities (e.g. Francis of Assisi, Luther, Wesley) and little societies of earnest Christians (e.g. the Waldenses, the early Moravians and Quakers) who have reasserted Christ's gospel on its physical side as a gospel for sickness no less than for sin, and claimed for the gift of healing the place Paul assigned to it among the gifts of the Spirit. In recent years the subject of Christian healing has risen into importance outside of the regularly organized churches through the activity of various faith-healing movements. That the leaders of these movements have laid hold of a truth at once Scriptural and scientific there can be little doubt, though they have usually combined it with what we regard as a mistaken hostility to the ordinary practice of medicine. It is worth remembering that with all his faith in the spiritual gift of healing and personal experience of its power, Paul chose Luke the physician as the companion of his later journeys; and worth noticing that Luke shared with the apostle the honors showered upon the missionaries by the people of Melita whom they had cured of their diseases (Acts 28:10). Upon the modern church there seems to lie the duty of reaffirming the reality and permanence of the primitive gift of healing, while relating it to the scientific practice of medicine as another power ordained of God, and its natural ally in the task of diffusing the Christian gospel of health.
LITERATURE.
Hort, Christian Ecclesia, chapter x; A.T. Schofield, Force of Mind, Unconscious Therapeutics; E. Worcester and others, Religion and Medicine; HJ, IV, 3, p. 606; The Expositor T, XVII, 349, 417.
J. C. Lambert
helth (shalom, yeshu`ah, 'arukhah; riph'uth, 'arukhah; soteria, hugiaino): Shalom is part of the formal salutation still common in Palestine. In this sense it is used in Gen 43:28; 2 Sam 20:9; the stem word means "peace," and is used in many varieties of expression relating to security, success and good bodily health. Yeshu`ah, which specifically means deliverance or help, occurs in the refrain of Ps 42:11; 43:5, as well as in Ps 67:2; in the American Standard Revised Version it is rendered "help." Riph'uth is literally, "healing," and is found only in Prov 3:8. Marpe' also means healing of the body, but is used in a figurative sense as of promoting soundness of mind and moral character in Prov 4:22; 12:18; 13:17; 16:24, as also in Jer 8:15, where the Revised Version (British and American) renders it "healing." 'Arukhah is also used in the same figurative sense in Isa 58:8; Jer 8:22; 30:17; 33:6; literally means "repairing or restoring"; it is the word used of the repair of the wall of Jerusalem by Nehemiah (chapter 4).
The word "health" occurs twice in the New Testament: in Paul's appeal to his shipmates to take food (Acts 27:34), he says it is for their soteria, literally, "safety"; so the American Standard Revised Version, the King James Version "health." The verb hugianino is used in 3 Jn 1:2, in the apostle's salutation to Gaius.
Alexander Macalister
hep (`aremah, gal, nedh, tel): "Heap" appears (1) in the simple sense of a gathering or pile, as the translation of `aremah, a "heap," in Ruth 3:7 of grain; Neh 4:2 of stones; in 2 Ch 31:6, etc., of the tithes, etc.; of chomer (boiling up), a "heap"; in Ex 8:14 of frogs; of gal, a "heap"; in Job 8:17 of stones. (2) As indicating "ruin," "waste," gal (2 Ki 19:25; Job 15:28; Isa 25:2; 37:26; Jer 9:11; 51:37); me`i (Isa 17:1); `i (Ps 79:1; Jer 26:18; Mic 1:6; 3:12); tel, "mound," "hillock," "heap" (Dt 13:16; Josh 8:28; Jer 30:18 the King James Version; 49:2). (3) Of waters, nedh, "heap," "pile" (Ex 15:8; Josh 3:13,16; Ps 33:7; 78:13); chomer (Hab 3:15, "the heap of mighty waters," the Revised Version margin "surge"). (4) A cairn, or heap of stones (a) over the dead body of a dishonored person, gal (Josh 7:26; 8:29; 2 Sam 18:17); (b) as a witness or boundary-heap (Gen 31:46 f, Gal`edh (Galeed) in Hebrew, also mitspah, "watch tower," Yeghar-Sahadhutha' (Jegar-sahadutha) in Aramaic, both words meaning "the heap of witness"; see Gen 31:47,49 the Revised Version (British and American)). (5) As a way mark, tamrurim, from tamar, "to stand erect" (Jer 31:21 the King James Version, "Set thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps," the Revised Version (British and American) "guide-posts," a more likely translation).
"To heap" represents various single words: chathah, "to take," "to take hold of," with one exception, applied to fire or burning coals (Prov 25:22, "Thou writ heap coals of fire upon his head," "Thou wilt take coals of fire (and heap them) on his head"); caphah, "to add" (Dt 32:23); tsabhar, "to heap up" (Hab 1:10); kabhats, "to press together" (with the fingers or hand) (Hab 2:5); rabhah, "to multiply" (Ezek 24:10); episoreuo, "to heap up upon" (2 Tim 4:3, they "will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts"); soreuo, "to heap up" (Rom 12:20, "Thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head"); thesaurizo, "to lay up" (as treasure) (Jas 5:3 the King James Version, "Ye have heaped treasure together," the Revised Version (British and American) "laid up"); tsabhar, "to heap up," "to heap" or "store up" (Job 27:16, "silver"; Ps 39:6, "riches"; Zec 9:3, "silver,"); sum, sim "to place," "set," "put" (Job 36:13 the King James Version, "The hypocrites in heart heap up wrath," the Revised Version (British and American) "They that are godless in heart lay up anger"). In Jdg 15:16 we have chamor, chamorothayim, "with the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps," the Revised Version margin "heap, two heaps"; one of Samson's sayings; chamor means "an ass," chomer "a heap."
For "heap up words" (Job 16:4), the Revised Version (British and American) has "join together"; for "shall be a heap" (Isa 17:11), "fleeth away," margin "shall be a heap"; "heap" for "number" (Nah 3:3); the English Revised Version "heap of stones" for "sling," margin as the King James Version and the American Standard Revised Version (Prov 26:8); "in one heap" for "upon a heap" (Josh 3:16); "he heapeth up (dust)" for "they shall heap" (Hab 1:10).
W. L. Walker
hart (lebh, lebhabh; kardia): The different senses in which the word occurs in the Old Testament and the New Testament may be grouped under the following heads:
It represents in the first place the bodily organ, and by easy transition those experiences which affect or are affected by the body. Fear, love, courage, anger, Joy, sorrow, hatred are always ascribed to the heart--especially in the Old Testament; thus courage for which usually ruach is used (Ps 27:14); joy (Ps 4:7); anger (Dt 19:6, "while his heart is hot," lebhabh); fear (1 Sam 25:37); sorrow (Ps 13:2), etc.
Hence, naturally it came to stand for the man himself (Dt 7:17; "say in thine heart," Isa 14:13).
As representing the man himself, it was considered to be the seat of the emotions and passions and appetites (Gen 18:5; Lev 19:17; Ps 104:15), and embraced likewise the intellectual and moral faculties--though these are necessarily ascribed to the "soul" as well. This distinction is not always observed.
"Soul" in Hebrew can never be rendered by "heart"; nor can "heart" be considered as a synonym for "soul." Cremer has well observed: "The Hebrew nephesh ("soul") is never translated kardia ("heart"). .... The range of the Hebrew nephesh, to which the Greek psuche alone corresponds, differs so widely from the ideas connected with psuche, that utter confusion would have ensued had psuche been employed in an unlimited degree for lebh ("heart"). The Biblical lebh never, like psuche, denotes the personal subject, nor could it do so. That which in classical Greek is ascribed to psuche (a good soul, a just soul, etc.) is in the Bible ascribed to the heart alone and cannot be otherwise" (Cremer, Lexicon, article "Kardia," 437 ff, German edition).
In the heart vital action is centered (1 Ki 21:7). "Heart," except as a bodily organ, is never ascribed to animals, as is the case sometimes with nephesh and ruach (Lev 17:11, nephesh; Gen 2:19; Nu 16:22; Gen 7:22, ruach). "Heart" is thus often used interchangeably with these two (Gen 41:8; Ps 86:4; 119:20); but "it never denotes the personal subject, always the personal organ."
As the central organ in the body, forming a focus for its vital action, it has come to stand for the center of its moral, spiritual, intellectual life. "In particular the heart is the place in which the process of self-consciousness is carried out, in which the soul is at home with itself, and is conscious of all its doing and suffering as its own" (Oehler). Hence, it is that men of "courage" are called "men of the heart"; that the Lord is said to speak "in his heart" (Gen 8:21); that men "know in their own heart" (Dt 8:5); that "no one considereth in his heart' (Isa 44:19 the King James Version). "Heart" in this connection is sometimes rendered "mind," as in Nu 16:28 ("of mine own mind," Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) ex proprio corde, Septuagint ap' emautou); the foolish "is void of understanding," i.e. "heart" (Prov 6:32, where the Septuagint renders phrenon, Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) cordis, Luther "der ist ein Narr"). God is represented as "searching the heart" and "trying the reins" (Jer 17:10 the King James Version). Thus, "heart" comes to stand for "conscience," for which there is no word in Hebrew, as in Job 27:6, "My heart shall not reproach me," or in 1 Sam 24:5, "David's heart smote him"; compare 1 Sam 25:31. From this it appears, in the words of Owen: "The heart in Scripture is variously used, sometimes for the mind and understanding, sometimes for the will, sometimes for the affections, sometimes for the conscience, sometimes for the whole soul. Generally, it denotes the whole soul of man and all the faculties of it, not absolutely, but as they are all one principle of moral operations, as they all concur in our doing of good and evil."
The radical corruption of human nature is clearly taught in Scripture and brought into connection with the heart. It is "uncircumcised" (Jer 9:26; Ezek 44:7; compare Acts 7:51); and "hardened" (Ex 4:21); "wicked" (Prov 26:23); "perverse" (Prov 11:20); "godless" (Job 36:13); "deceitful and desperately wicked" (Jer 17:9 the King James Version). It defiles the whole man (Mt 15:19,20); resists, as in the case of Pharaoh, the repeated call of God (Ex 7:13). There, however, the law of God is written (Rom 2:15); there the work of grace is wrought (Acts 15:9), for the "heart" may be "renewed" by grace (Ezek 36:26), because the "heart" is the seat of sin (Gen 6:5; 8:21).
This process of heart-renewal is indicated in various ways. It is the removal of a "stony heart" (Ezek 11:19). The heart becomes "clean" (Ps 51:10); "fixed" (Ps 112:7) through "the fear" of the Lord (verse 1); "With the heart man believeth" (Rom 10:10); on the "heart" the power of God is exercised for renewal (Jer 31:33). To God the bereaved apostles pray as a knower of the heart (Acts 1:24--a word not known to classical writers, found only here in the New Testament and in Acts 15:8, kardiognostes). In the "heart" God's Spirit dwells with might (Eph 3:16, eis ton eso anthropon); in the "heart" God's love is poured forth (Rom 5:5). The Spirit of His son has been "sent forth into the heart" (Gal 4:6); the "earnest of the Spirit" has been given "in the heart" (2 Cor 1:22). In the work of grace, therefore, the heart occupies a position almost unique.
We might also refer here to the command, on which both the Old Testament and New Testament revelation of love is based: "Thou shalt love Yahweh thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might" (Dt 6:5); where "heart" always takes the first place, and is the term which in the New Testament rendering remains unchanged (compare Mt 22:37; Mk 12:30,33; Lk 10:27, where "heart" always takes precedence).
A bare reference may be made to the employment of the term for that which is innermost, hidden, deepest in anything (Ex 15:8; Jon 2:3), the very center of things. This we find in all languages. Compare Eph 3:16,17, "in the inward man," as above.
J. I. Marais
harth: Occurs 7 times in the King James Version: Gen 18:6; Ps 102:3; Isa 30:14; Jer 36:22,23 bis; Zec 12:6; 4 times in the Revised Version: Lev 6:9; Isa 30:14; Ezek 43:15,16 ("altar hearth"); compare also Isa 29:1 the Revised Version margin. It will be noted that the renderings of the two versions agree in only one passage (Isa 30:14).
(1) The hearth in case of a tent was nothing more than a depression in the ground in which fire was kindled for cooking or for warmth. Cakes were baked, after the fashion of Gen 18:6, in the ashes or upon hot stones. In this passage, however, there is nothing in the Hebrew corresponding to the King James Version "on the hearth." In the poorer class of houses also the hearth consisted of such a depression, of varying dimensions, in the middle or in one corner of the room. There was no chimney for the smoke, which escaped as it could, or through a latticed opening for the purpose (the "chimney" of Hos 13:3). While the nature of the hearth is thus clear enough, more or less uncertainty attaches to specific terms used in the Hebrew. In Isa 30:14 the expression means simply "that which is kindled," referring to the bed of live coals. From this same verb (yaqadh, "be kindled") are formed the nouns moqedh (Ps 102:3 (Hebrew 4)) and moqkedhah (Lev 6:9 (Hebrew 2)) which might, according to their formation, mean either the material kindled or the place where a fire is kindled. Hence, the various renderings, "firebrand," "hearth," etc. Moreover, in Lev 6:9 (2) the termination -ah of moqedhah may be taken as the pronominal suffix, "its"; hence, the Revised Version margin "on its firewood."
(2) Two other terms have reference to heating in the better class of houses. In Jer 36:22,23 the word ('ach) means a "brazier" of burning coals, with which Jehoiakim's "winter house" was heated. The same purpose was served by the "pan (kiyyor) of fire" of Zec 12:6 the Revised Version (British and American), apparently a wide, shallow vessel otherwise used for cooking (1 Sam 2:14, English Versions of the Bible "pan"), or as a wash basin (compare Ex 30:18; 1 Ki 7:38, etc., "laver").
(3) Another class of passages is referred to the signification "altar hearth," which seems to have been a term applied to the top of the altar of burnt offering. The moqedhah of Lev 6:9 (2), though related by derivation to the words discussed under (1) above, belongs here (compare also Ecclesiasticus 50:12, "by the hearth of the altar," par' eschara bomou). Again in Ezekiel's description of the altar of the restored temple (43:15,16), he designates the top of the altar by a special term (the Revised Version margin, ariel), which is by most understood to mean "altar hearth" (so the Revised Version (British and American)). With this may be compared the symbolical name given to Jerusalem (Isa 29:1), and variously explained as "lion (or lioness) of God," or "hearth of God."
Benjamin Reno Downer
har'-ti-li: Occurs (Col 3:23) as the translation of ek psuches, "out of the soul," "Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily as unto the Lord (who sees the heart and recompenses "whatsoever good thing a man does") and not unto men" (however they, your masters according to the flesh, may regard it); the Revised Version (British and American) "work heartily," margin (Greek) "from the soul."
In 2 Macc 4:37, we have "Antiochus was heartily sorry," psuchikos ("from the soul").
het (chom, horebh, "drought," Job 30:30; Isa 4:6; 25:4; Jer 36:30; sharabh, Isa 49:10, translated in the Revised Version margin "mirage"; zestos, "fervent," Rev 3:15, therme, Acts 28:3, kauma, Rev 7:16, kauson, Mt 20:12; see MIRAGE ):
The heat of the summer is greatly dreaded in Palestine, and as a rule the people rest under cover during the middle of the day, when the sun is hottest. There is no rain from May to October, and scarcely a cloud in the sky to cool the air or to screen off the burning vertical rays of the sun. The first word of advice given to visitors to the country is to protect themselves from the sun. Even on the mountains, where the temperature of the air is lower, the sun is perhaps more fierce, owing to the lesser density of the atmosphere.
This continuous summer heat often causes sunstroke, and the glare causes diseases of the eye which affect a large percentage of the people of Palestine and Egypt.
It is to be expected that in these times of heat and drought the ideal pleasure has come to be to sit in the shade by some cool flowing fountain. In the mountains the village which has the coolest spring of water is the most desired. These considerations give renewed meaning to the passages: "as cold waters to a thirsty soul" (Prov 25:25); "He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; he leadeth me beside still waters" (Ps 23:2). What a blessing to be "under the shadow of the Almighty" (Ps 91:1), where "the sun shall not strike upon them, nor any heat" (Rev 7:16)!
The middle of the day is often referred to as the "heat of the day" (1 Sam 11:11). It made a great difference to the army whether it could win the battle before the midday heat. Saladin won the great battle at Hattin by taking advantage of this fact. It was a particular time of the day when it was the custom to rest. "They came about the heat of the day to the house of Ish-bosheth, as he took his rest at noon" (2 Sam 4:5). Yahweh appeared to Abraham as "he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day" (Gen 18:1). The hardship of working throughout the day is expressed in Mt 20:12, "who have borne the burden of the day and scorching heat." Sometimes just after sunrise the contrast of the cold of night and the heat of the sun is especially noticeable. "The sun ariseth with the scorching wind" (Jas 1:11).
In summer the wind is usually from the Southwest, but in case it is from the South it is sure to be hot. "When ye see a south wind blowing, ye say, There will be a scorching heat" (Lk 12:55). The heat on a damp, sultry day, when the atmosphere is full of dust haze is especially oppressive, and is referred to in Isa 25:5 as "the heat by the shade of a cloud." The heat of summer melts the snow on the mountains and causes all vegetation to dry up and wither. Ice and snow vanish in the heat thereof (Job 6:17), "Drought and heat consume the snow waters" (Job 24:19). But the "tree planted by the waters, that spreadeth out its roots by the river .... shall not fear when heat cometh, but its leaf shall be green" (Jer 17:8).
The word is used often in connection with anger in the Scriptures: "hot anger" (Ex 11:8); "hot displeasure" (Dt 9:19); "anger of the Lord was hot against Israel" (Jdg 2:14 the King James Version); "thine anger from waxing hot" (Ps 85:3 King James Version, margin); "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot" (Rev 3:15).
Alfred H. Joy
heth.
See TAMARISK .
he'-th'-n, he'-then.
See GENTILES .
hev of'-er-ing.
See SACRIFICE .
hev'-'n.
See ASTRONOMY .
See ASTRONOMY , sec. I, 1.
See ASTRONOMY , sec. I, 1; II, 13.
See ASTRONOMY , sec. III, 4.
hev'-'n-li (ouranios, epouranios): Pertaining to heaven or the heavens. See HEAVENS . The phrase ta epourania, translated "heavenly things" in Jn 3:12; Heb 8:5; 9:23, but in Ephesians "heavenly places" (Jn 1:3,10; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12), has shades of meaning defined by the context. In Jn 3:12, in contrast with "earthly things" (i.e. such as can be brought to the test of experience), it denotes truths known only through revelation (God's love in salvation). In Hebrews the sense is local. In Ephesians it denotes the sphere of spiritual privilege in Christ, except in 6:12, where it stands for the unseen spiritual world, in which both good and evil forces operate. It is always the sphere of the super-earthly.
James Orr
hev'-'nz (shamayim; ouranoi): On the physical heavens see ASTRONOMY ;WORLD . Above these, in popular conception, were the celestial heavens, the abode of God and of the hosts of angels (Ps 11:4; 103:19-21; Isa 66:1; Rev 4:2; 5:11; compare Dan 7:10), though it was recognized that Yahweh's presence was not confined to any region (1 Ki 8:27). Later Judaism reckoned seven heavens. The apostle Paul speaks of himself as caught up into "the third heaven," which he evidently identifies with Paradise (2 Cor 12:2).
See HEAVENLY .
2. Earliest Conceptions: Cosmic verses National Type
3. Different from Mythological Theory
4. Antiquity of Cosmical Conception
5. The Cosmical Dependent on the Ethico-Religious
6. The End Correspondent to the Beginning
7. The Cosmical Heavens: Hebrews 12:26-29
8. Palingenesis: Matthew 19:28
The formal conception of new heavens and a new earth occurs in Isa 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1 (where "heaven," singular). The idea in substance is also found in Isa 51:16; Mt 19:28; 2 Cor 5:17; Heb 12:26-28. In each case the reference is eschatological, indeed the adjective "new" seems to have acquired in this and other connections a semi-technical eschatological sense. It must be remembered that the Old Testament has no single word for "universe," and that the phrase "heaven and earth" serves to supply the deficiency. The promise of a new heavens and a new earth is therefore equivalent to a promise of world renewal.
2. Earliest Conceptions: Cosmic verses National Type:
It is a debated question how old in the history of revelation this promise is. Isaiah is the prophet with whom the idea first occurs in explicit form, and that in passages which many critics would assign to the post-exilic period (the so-called Trito-Isaiah). In general, until recently, the trend of criticism has been to represent the universalistic-cosmic type of eschatology as developed out of the particularistic-national type by a gradual process of widening of the horizon of prophecy, a view which would put the emergence of the former at a comparatively late date. More recently, however, Gressmann (Der Ursprung der israelitisch-judischen Eschatologie, 1905) and others have endeavored to show that often even prophecies belonging to the latter type embody material and employ means of expression which presuppose acquaintance with the idea of a world-catastrophe at the end. On this view the world-eschatology would have, from ancient times, existed alongside of the more narrowly confined outlook, and would be even older than the latter. These writers further assume that the cosmic eschatology was not indigenous among the Hebrews, but of oriental (Babylonian) origin, a theory which they apply not only to the more developed system of the later apocalyptic writings, but also to its preformations in the Old Testament. The cosmic eschatology is not believed to have been the distinctive property of the great ethical prophets, but rather a commonly current mythological belief to which the prophets refer without formally endorsing it.
3. Different from Mythological Theory:
Its central thought is said to have been the belief that the end of the world-process must correspond to the beginning, that consequently the original condition of things, when heaven and earth were new, must repeat itself at some future point, and the state of paradise with its concomitants return, a belief supposed to have rested on certain astronomical observations.
4. Antiquity of Cosmical Conception
While this theory in the form presented is unproven and unacceptable, it deserves credit for having focused attention on certain phenomena in the Old Testament which clearly show that Messianic prophecy, and particularly the world-embracing scope which it assumes in some predictions, is far older than modern criticism had been willing to concede. The Old Testament from the beginning has an eschatology and puts the eschatological promise on the broadest racial basis (Gen 3). It does not first ascend from Israel to the new humanity, but at the very outset takes its point of departure in the race and from this descends to the election of Israel, always keeping the Universalistic goal in clear view. Also in the earliest accounts, already elements of a cosmical universalism find their place side by side with those of a racial kind, as when Nature is represented as sharing in the consequences of the fall of man.
5. The Cosmical Dependent on the Ethico-Religious:
As regards the antiquity of the universalistic and cosmical eschatology, therefore, the conclusions of these writers may be registered as a gain, while on the two other points of the pagan origin and the unethical character of the expectation involved, dissent from them should be expressed. According to the Old Testament, the whole idea of world-renewal is of strictly super-natural origin, and in it the cosmical follows the ethical hope. The cosmical eschatology is simply the correlate of the fundamental Biblical principle that the issues of the world-process depend on the ethico-religious developments in the history of man (compare 2 Pet 3:13).
6. The End Correspondent to the Beginning:
But the end correspondent to the beginning is likewise a true Scriptural principle, which theory in question has helped to reemphasize, although there is this difference that Scripture does not look forward to a repetition of the same process, but to a restoration of the primeval harmony on a higher plane such as precludes all further disturbance. In the passages above cited, there are clear reminiscences of the account of creation (Isa 51:16, "that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth"; 65:17, "I create new heavens and a new earth"; 2 Pet 3:13 compared with 3:4-6; Rev 21:1 compared with the imagery of paradise throughout the chapter). Besides this, where the thought of the renewal of earth is met with in older prophecy, this is depicted in colors of the state of paradise (Isa 11:6-9; Hos 2:18-21). The "regeneration" (palingenesia) of Mt 19:28 also points back to the first genesis of the world. The `inhabited earth to come' (oikoumene mellousa) of Heb 2:5 occurs at the opening of a context throughout which the account of Gen 1 through 3 evidently stood before the writer's mind.
7. The Cosmical Heavens: Hebrews 12:26-29:
In the combination "new heavens and a new earth," the term "heavens" must therefore be taken in the sense imposed upon it by the story of creation, where "heavens" designates not the celestial habitation of God, but the cosmical heavens, the region of the supernal waters, sun moon and stars. The Bible nowhere suggests that there is anything abnormal or requiring renewal in God's dwelling-place (Heb 9:23 is of a different import). In Rev 21, where "the new heaven and the new earth" appear, it is at the same time stated that the new Jerusalem comes down from God out of heaven (compare 21:1,2,10). In Heb 12:26-28 also the implication is that only the lower heavens are subject to renewal. The "shaking" that accompanies the new covenant and corresponds to the shaking of the law-giving at Sinai, is a shaking of "not the earth only, but also the heaven." This shaking, in its reference to heaven as well as to earth, signifies a removal of the things shaken. But from the things thus shaken and removed (including heaven), the writer distinguishes "those things which are not shaken," which are destined to remain, and these are identified with the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God, however, according to the general trend of the teaching of the epistle, has its center in the heavenly world. The words "that have been made," in 12:27, do not assign their created character as the reason why heaven and earth can be shaken, an exegesis which would involve us in the difficulty that among that which remains there is something uncreated besides God; the true construction and correct paraphrase are: "as of things that were made with the thought in the mind of God that those things which cannot be shaken may remain," i.e. already at creation God contemplated an unchangeable universe as the ultimate, higher state of things.
8. Palingenesis: Matthew 19:28:
In Mt 19:28 the term palingenesia marks the world-renewing as the renewal of an abnormal state of things. The Scripture teaching, therefore, is that around the center of God's heaven, which is not subject to deterioration or renewal, a new cosmical heaven and a new earth will be established to be the dwelling-place of the eschatological humanity. The light in which the promise thus appears reminds us that the renewed kosmos, earth as well as cosmical heavens, is destined to play a permanent (not merely provisional, on the principle of chiliasm) part in the future life of the people of God. This is in entire harmony with the prevailing Biblical representation, not only in the Old Testament but likewise in the New Testament (compare Mt 5:5; Heb 2:5), although in the Fourth Gospel and in the Pauline Epistles the emphasis is to such an extent thrown on the heaven-centered character of the future life that the role to be played in it by the renewed earth recedes into the background. Revelation, on the other hand, recognizes this element in its imagery of "the new Jerus" coming down from God out of heaven upon earth.
That the new heavens and the new earth are represented as the result of a "creation" does not necessarily involve a production ex nihilo. The terms employed in 2 Pet 3:6-13 seem rather to imply that the renewal will out of the old produce a purified universe, whence also the catastrophe is compared to that of the Deluge. As then the old world perished by water and the present world arose out of the flood, so in the end-crisis "the heavens shall be dissolved by fire and the elements melt with fervent heat," to give rise to the new heaven and the new earth in which righteousness dwells. The term palingenesia (Mt 19:28) points to renewal, not to creation de novo. The Talmud also teaches that the world will pass through a process of purification, although at the same time it seems to break up the continuity between this and the coming world by the fantastic assumption that the new heavens and the new earth of Isa 65:17 were created at the close of the Hexemeron of Gen 1. This was inferred from the occurrence of the article in Isa 66:22, "the new heavens and the new earth."
Geerhardus Vos
hev'-i, hev'-i-nes (kabhedh, de'aghah; lupe):
Heavy (heave, to lift) is used literally with respect to material things, as the translation of kobhedh, "heaviness" (Prov 27:3, "a stone is heavy"); of kabhedh, "to be weighty" (1 Sam 4:18; 2 Sam 14:26; Lam 3:7); of `amac, "to load" (Isa 46:1 the King James Version; compare Mt 26:43; Mk 14:40; Lk 9:32, "Their eyes were heavy"); bareomai, "to be weighed down."
It is used (1) for what is hard to bear, oppressive, kabhedh (Ex 18:18; Nu 11:14; 1 Sam 5:6,11; Ps 38:4; Isa 24:20); motah, a "yoke" (Isa 58:6, the Revised Version (British and American) "bands of the yoke"); qasheh, "sharp," "hard" (1 Ki 14:6, "heavy tidings"); barus, "heavy" (Mt 23:4); (2) for sad, sorrowful (weighed down), mar, "bitter" (Prov 31:6, the Revised Version (British and American) "bitter"); ra`, "evil" (Prov 25:20); ademoneo, literally, "to be sated," "wearied," then, "to be very heavy," "dejected" (Mt 26:37, of our Lord in Gethsemane, "(he) began to be sorrowful and very heavy," the Revised Version (British and American) "sore troubled"); "ademonein denotes a kind of stupefaction and bewilderment, the intellectual powers reeling and staggering under the pressure of the ideas presented to them" (Mason, The Conditions of our Lord's Life on Earth); compare Mk 14:33; (3) morose, sulky, as well as sad, car, "sullen," "sour," "angry" (1 Ki 20:43; 21:4, "heavy and displeased"); (4) dull, kabhedh (Isa 6:10, "make their ears heavy"; 59:1, "neither (is) his ear heavy"); (5) "tired" seems to be the meaning in Ex 17:12, "Moses' hands were heavy" (kabhedh); compare Mt 26:43 and parallels above.
Heavily is the translation of kebhedhuth, "heaviness" (Ex 14:25), meaning "with difficulty"; of qadhar, "to be black," "to be a mourner" (Ps 35:14 the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) "I bowed down mourning"); of kabhedh (Isa 47:6).
Heaviness has always the sense of anxiety, sorrow, grief, etc.; de'aghah, "fear," "dread," "anxious care" (Prov 12:25, "Heaviness in the heart of a man maketh it stoop," the Revised Version margin "or care"); kehah, "to be feeble," "weak" (Isa 61:3, "the spirit of heaviness"); panim, "face," "aspect" (Job 9:27 the King James Version, "I will leave off my heaviness," the Revised Version (British and American) "(sad) countenance"; compare 2 Esdras 5:16; The Wisdom of Solomon 17:4; Ecclesiasticus 25:23); ta'aniyah, from 'anah, "to groan," "to sigh" (Isa 29:2, the Revised Version (British and American) "mourning and lamentation"); tughah, "sadness," "sorrow" (Ps 119:28; Prov 10:1; 14:13); ta`anith, "affliction of one's self," "fasting" (Ezr 9:5, the Revised Version (British and American) "humiliation," margin "fasting"); katepheia, "dejection," "sorrow" (literally, "of the eyes") (Jas 4:9, "your joy (turned) to heaviness"); lupe, "grief" (Rom 9:2, the Revised Version (British and American) "great sorrow"; 2 Cor 2:1, the Revised Version (British and American) "sorrow"); lupeomai (1 Pet 1:6, the Revised Version (British and American) "put to grief"); for nush, "to be sick," "feeble" (Ps 69:20, the Revised Version margin "sore sick"), and ademoneo (Phil 2:26 the Revised Version (British and American) "sore troubled"), the King James Version has "full of heaviness." "Heaviness," in the sense of sorrow, sadness, occurs in 2 Esdras 10:7,8,24; Tobit 2:5; lupe (Ecclesiasticus 22:4, the Revised Version (British and American) "grief"; 30:21, "Give not thy soul to heaviness," the Revised Version (British and American) "sorrow"; 1 Macc 6:4); lupeo (Ecclesiasticus 30:9, the Revised Version (British and American) "will grieve thee"; penthos (1 Macc 3:51, etc.).
The Revised Version has "heavier work" for "more work" (Ex 5:9); "heavy upon men" for "common among men" (Eccl 6:1); for "were heavy loaden" (Isa 46:1), "are made a load"; for "the burden thereof is heavy" (Isa 30:27), "in thick rising smoke."
W. L. Walker
he'-ber (chebher, "associate" or, possibly, "enchanter"; Eber): A name occurring several times in the Old Testament as the name of an individual or of a clan.
(1) A member of the tribe of Asher and son of Beraiah (Gen 46:17; Nu 26:45; 1 Ch 7:31 f).
(2) A Kenite, husband of Jael, who deceptively slew Sisera, captain of the army of Jabin, a Canaanite king (Jdg 4:17; 5:24). He had separated himself from the main body of the Kenites, which accounts for his tent being near Kedesh, the place of Sisera's disastrous battle (Jdg 4:11).
(3) Head of a clan of Judah, and son of Mered by his Jewish, as distinguished from an Egyptian wife. He was father, or founder, of Soco (1 Ch 4:18).
(4) A Benjamite, or clan or family of Elpaal belonging to Benjamin (1 Ch 8:17).
(5) Heber, of our Lord's genealogy (Lk 3:35 the King James Version), better, Eber.
So, the name "Eber," `ebher, in 1 Ch 5:13; 8:22, is not to be confused with Heber, chebher, as in the foregoing passages.
Edward Bagby Pollard
he'-ber-its (ha-chebhri): Descendants of Heber, a prominent clan of Asher, (Nu 26:45). Supposed by some to be connected with the Chabiri of the Tell el-Amarna Letters.
See LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ;ARAMAIC .
he'-broo, he'-broo-es (`ibhri, feminine `ibhriyah; Hebraios): The earliest name for Abraham (Gen 14:13) and his descendants (Joseph, Gen 39:14,17; 40:15; 41:12; 43:32; Israelites in Egypt, Ex 1:15; 2:6,11,13; 3:18; in laws, Ex 21:2; Dt 15:12; in history, 1 Sam 4:6,9; 13:7,19, etc.; later, Jer 34:9, "Hebrewess," 34:14; Jon 1:9; in the New Testament, Acts 6:1; 2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5). The etymology of the word is disputed. It may be derived from Eber (Gen 10:21,24,25, etc.), or, as some think, from the verb `abhar, "to cross over" (people from across the Euphrates; compare Josh 24:2). A connection is sought by some with the apri or epri of the Egyptian monuments, and again with the Habiri of the Tell el-Amarna Letters. In Acts 6:1, the "Hebrews" are contrasted with "Hellenists," or Greek-speaking Jews. By the "Hebrew" tongue in the New Testament (Hebraisti, Jn 5:2; 19:13,17,20; 20:16) is meant ARAMAIC (which see), but also in Rev 9:11; 16:16, Hebrew proper.
James Orr
he'-brooz,
1. The Author's Culture and Style
2. Letter, Epistle or Treatise?
3. A Unity or a Composite Work?
(3) Rome and the West: Anonymous
2. The Witness of the Epistle Itself
(b) Barnabas; Priscilla and Aquila; Philip; Aristion; Apollos
1. General Character of the Readers
3. The Locality of the Readers
2. Conversion and History of the Readers
LITERATURE
In the King James Version and the English Revised Version the title of this book describes it as "the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews." Modern scholarship has disputed the applicability of every word of this title. Neither does it appear in the oldest manuscripts, where we find simply "to Hebrews" (pros Hebraious). This, too, seems to have been prefixed to the original writing by a collector or copyist. It is too vague and general for the author to have used it. And there is nothing in the body of the book which affirms any part of either title. Even the shorter title was an inference from the general character of the writing. Nowhere is criticism less hampered by problems of authenticity and inspiration. No question arises, at least directly, of pseudonymity either of author or of readers, for both are anonymous. For the purpose of tracing the history and interpreting the meaning of the book, the absence of a title, or of any definite historical data, is a disadvantage. We are left to infer its historical context from a few fragments of uncertain tradition, and from such general references to historical conditions as the document itself contains. Where no date, name or well-known event is fixed, it becomes impossible to decide, among many possibilities, what known historical conditions, if any, are pre-supposed. Yet this very fact, of the book's detachment from personal and historical incidents, renders it more self-contained, and its exegesis less dependent upon understanding the exact historical situation. But its general relation to the thought of its time must be taken into account if we are to understand it at all.
1. The Author's Culture and Style:
The writer was evidently a man of culture, who had a masterly command of the Greek language. The theory of Clement of Alexandria, that the work was a translation from Hebrew, was merely an inference from the supposition that it was first addressed to Hebrew-speaking Christians. It bears none of the marks of a translation. It is written in pure idiomatic Greek. The writer had an intimate knowledge of the Septuagint, and was familiar with Jewish life. He was well-read in Hellenic literally (e.g. Wisdom), and had probably made a careful study of Philo (see VI below). His argument proceeds continuously and methodically, in general, though not strict, accord with the rules of Greek rhetoric, and without the interruptions and digressions which render Paul's arguments so hard to follow. "Where the literary skill of the author comes out is in the deft adjustment of the argumentative to the hortatory sections" (Moffatt, Introduction, 424 f). He has been classed with Lk as the most "cultured" of the early Christian writers.
2. Letter, Epistle or Treatise?:
It has been questioned whether Hebrews is rightly called a letter at all. Unlike all Paul's letters, it opens without any personal note of address or salutation; and at the outset it sets forth, in rounded periods and in philosophical language, the central theme which is developed throughout. In this respect it resembles the Johannine writings alone in the New Testament. But as the argument proceeds, the personal note of application, exhortation and expostulation emerges more clearly (Heb 2:1; 3:1-12; 4:1,14; 5:11; 6:9; 10:9; 13:7); and it ends with greetings and salutations (Heb 13:18 ff). The writer calls it "a word of exhortation." The verb epesteila (the Revised Version (British and American) "I have written") is the usual expression for writing a letter (Heb 13:22). Hebrews begins like an essay, proceeds like a sermon, and ends as a letter.
Deissmann, who distinguishes between a "true letter," the genuine personal message of one man to another, and an "epistle," or a treatise written in imitation of the form of a letter, but with an eye on the reading public, puts Hebrews in the latter class; nor would he "consider it anything but a literary oration--hence, not as an epistle at all--if the epesteila, and the greetings at the close, did not permit of the supposition that it had at one time opened with something of the nature of an address as well" (Bible Studies, 49-50). There is no textual or historical evidence of any opening address having ever stood as part of the text; nor does the opening section bear any mark or suggestion of fragmentariness, as if it had once followed such an address.
Yet the supposition that a greeting once stood at the beginning of our document is not so impossible as Zahn thinks (Introduction to the New Testament, II, 313 f), as a comparison with James or 1 Peter will show.
So unusual is the phenomenon of a letter without a greeting, that among the ancients, Pantaenus had offered the explanation that Paul, out of modesty, had refrained from putting his name to a letter addressed to the Hebrews, because the Lord Himself had been apostle to them.
In recent times, Julicher and Harnack have conjectured that the author intentionally suppressed the greeting, either from motives of prudence at a time of persecution, or because it was unnecessary, since the bearer of the letter would communicate the name of the sender to the recipients.
Overbeck advanced the more revolutionary hypothesis that the letter once opened with a greeting, but from someone other than Paul; that in order to satisfy the general conditions of canonization, the non-apostolic greeting was struck out by the Alexandrians, and the personal references in Heb 13:22-25 added, in order to represent it as Pauline.
3. A Unity or a Composite Work?:
W. Wrede, starting from this theory, rejects the first part of it and adopts the second. He does not base his hypothesis on the conditions of canonization, but on an examination of the writing itself. He adopts Deissmann's rejected alternative, and argues that the main part of the book was originally not an epistle at all, but a general doctrinal treatise. Then Heb 13, and especially 13:18 ff, were added by a later hand, in order to represent the whole as a Pauline letter, and the book in its final form was made, after all, pseudonymous. The latter supposition is based upon an assumed reference to imprisonment in 13:19 (compare Philem 1:22) and upon the reference to Timothy in Heb 13:23 (compare Phil 2:19); and the proof that these professed Pauline phrases are not really Pauline is found in a supposed contradiction between Heb 13:19 and 13:23. But 13:19 does not necessarily refer to imprisonment exclusively or even at all, and therefore it stands in no contradiction with 13:23 (compare Rom 1:9-13). And Timothy must have associated with many Christian leaders besides Paul. But why should anybody who wanted to represent the letter as Pauline and who scrupled not to add to it for that purpose, refrain from the obvious device of prefixing a Pauline greeting? Moreover, it is only by the most forced special pleading that it can be maintained that Heb 1 through 12 are a mere doctrinal treatise, devoid of all evidences of a personal relation to a circumscribed circle of readers. The period and manner of the readers' conversion are defined (2:3 f). Their present spiritual condition is described in terms of such anxiety and hope as betoken a very intimate personal relation (5:11 f; 6:9-11). Their past conflicts, temptations, endurance and triumph are recalled for their encouragement under present trials, and both past and present are defined in particular terms that point to concrete situations well known to writer and readers (10:32-36). There is, it is true, not in Hebrews the same intense and all-pervading personal note as appears in the earlier Pauline letters; the writer often loses sight of his particular audience and develops his argument in detached and abstract form. But it cannot be assumed that nothing is a letter which does not conform to the Pauline model. And the presence of long, abstract arguments does not justify the excision or explaining away of undoubted personal passages. Neither the language nor the logic of the book either demands or permits the separation of doctrinal and personal passages from one another, so as to leave for residuum a mere doctrinal treatise. Doctrinal statements lead up to personal exhortations, and personal exhortations form the transition to new arguments; they are indissolubly involved in one another; and chapter 13 presents no such exceptional. features as to justify its separation from the whole work. There is really no reason, but the unwarrantable assumption that an ancient writer must have conformed with a certain convention of letter-writing, to forbid the acceptance of Hebrews for what it appears to be--a defense of Christianity written for the benefit of definite readers, growing more intimate and personal as the writer gathers his argument into a practical appeal to the hearts and consciences of his readers,
Certain coincidences of language and thought between this epistle and that of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians justify the inference that Hebrews was known in Rome toward the end of the 1st century AD (compare Heb 11:7,31 and 1:3 ff with Clement ad Cor 9,12,36). Clement makes no explicit reference to the book or its author: the quotations are unacknowledged. But they show that Hebrews already had some authority in Rome. The same inference is supported by similarities of expression found also in the Shepherd of Hermas. The possible marks of its influence in Polycarp and Justin Martyr are too uncertain and indefinite to justify any inference. Its name does not appear in the list of New Testament writings compiled and acknowledged by Marcion, nor in that of the Muratorian Fragment. The latter definitely assigns letters by Paul to only seven churches, and so inferentially excludes Hebrews.
When the book emerges into the clear light of history toward the end of the 2nd century, the tradition as to its authorship is seen to divide into three different streams.
In Alexandria, it was regarded as in some sense the work of Paul. Clement tells how his teacher, apparently Pantaenus, explained why Paul does not in this letter, as in others, address his readers under his name. Out of reverence for the Lord (II, 2, above) and to avoid suspicion and prejudice, he as apostle of the Gentiles refrains from addressing himself to the Hebrews as their apostle. Clement accepts this explanation, and adds to it that the original Hebrew of Paul's epistle had been translated into Greek by Luke. That Paul wrote in Hebrew was assumed from the tradition or inference that the letter was addressed to Aramaic-speaking Hebrews. Clement also had noticed the dissimilarity of its Greek from that of Paul's epistles, and thought he found a resemblance to that of Acts.
Origen starts with the same tradition, but he knew, moreover, that other churches did not accept the Alexandrian view, and that they even criticized Alexandria for admitting Hebrews into the Canon. And he feels, more than Clement, that not only the language, but the forms of thought are different from those of Paul's epistles. This he tries to explain by the hypothesis that while the ideas were Paul's, they had been formulated and written down by some other disciple. He found traditions that named Luke and Clement of Rome, but who the actual writer was, Origen declares that "God alone knows."
The Pauline tradition persisted in Alexandria, and by the 4th century it was accepted without any of the qualifications made by Clement and Origen. It had also in the same period spread over the other eastern churches, both Greek and Syrian. But the Pauline tradition, where it is nearest the fountain-head of history, in Clement and Origen, only ascribes Hebrews to Paul in a secondary sense.
In the West, the Pauline tradition failed to assert itself till the 4th century, and was not generally accepted till the 5th century. In Africa, another tradition prevailed, namely, that Barnabas was the author. This was the only other definite tradition of authorship that prevailed in antiquity. Tertullian, introducing a quotation of Heb 6:1,4-6, writes: "There is also an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas .... and the Epistle of Barnabas is more generally received among the churches than that apocryphal `Shepherd' of adulterers" (De Pudicitia, 20). Tertullian is not expressing his mere personal opinion, but quoting a tradition which had so far established itself as to appear in the title of the epistle in the MS, and he betrays no consciousness of the existence of any other tradition. Zahn infers that this view prevailed in Montanist churches and may have originated in Asia. Moffatt thinks that it had also behind it "some Roman tradition" (Introduction, 437). If it was originally, or at any time, the tradition of the African churches, it gave way there to the Alexandrian view in the course of the 4th century. A Council of Hippo in 393 reckons "thirteen epistles of the apostle Paul, and one by the same to the Hebrews." A council of Carthage in 419 reckons "fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul." By such gradual stages did the Pauline tradition establish itself.
(3) Rome and the West: Anonymous
All the evidence tends to show that in Rome and the remaining churches of the West, the epistle was originally anonymous. No tradition of authorship appears before the 4th century. And Stephen Gobarus, writing in 600, says that both Irenaeus and Hippolytus denied the Pauline authorship. Photius repeats this statement as regards Hippolytus. Neither he nor Gobarus mentions any alternative view (Zahn, Intro, II, 310). The epistle was known in Rome (to Clement) toward the end of the 1st century, and if Paul's name, or any other, had been associated with it from the beginning, it is impossible that it could have been forgotten by the time of Hippolytus. The western churches had no reason for refusing to admit Hebrews into the Pauline and canonical list of books, except only that they did not believe it to be the work of Paul, or of any other apostle.
It seems therefore certain that the epistle first became generally known as an anonymous writing. Even the Alexandrian tradition implies as much, for it appears first as an explanation by Pantaenus why Paul concealed his name. The idea that Paul was the author was therefore an Alexandrian inference. The religious value of the epistle was naturally first recognized in Alexandria, and the name of Paul, the chief letter-writer of the church, at once occurred to those in search for its author. Two facts account for the ultimate acceptance of that view by the whole church. The spiritual value and authority of the book were seen to be too great to relegate it into the same class as the Shepherd or the Epistle of Barnabas. And the conception of the Canon developed into the hard-and-fast rule of apostolicity. No writing could be admitted into the Canon unless it had an apostle for its author; and when Hebrews could no longer be excluded, it followed that its apostolic authorship must be affirmed. The tradition already existing in Alexandria supplied the demand, and who but Paul, among the apostles, could have written it?
The Pauline theory prevailed together with the scheme of thought that made it necessary, from the 5th to the 16th century. The Humanists and the Reformers rejected it. But it was again revived in the 17th and 18th centuries, along with the recrudescence of scholastic ideas. It is clear, however, that tradition and history shed no light upon the question of the authorship of Hebrews. They neither prove nor disprove the Pauline, or any other theory.
2. The Witness of the Epistle Itself:
We are therefore thrown back, in our search for the author, on such evidence as the epistle itself affords, and that is wholly inferential. It seems probable that the author was a Hellenist, a Greek-speaking Jew. He was familiar with the Scriptures of the Old Testament and with the religious ideas and worship of the Jews. He claims the inheritance of their sacred history, traditions and institutions (Heb 1:1), and dwells on them with an intimate knowledge and enthusiasm that would be improbable, though not impossible, in a proselyte, and still more in a Christian convert from heathenism. But he knew the Old Testament only in the Septuagint translation, which he follows even where it deviates from the Hebrew. He writes Greek with a purity of style and vocabulary to which the writings of Luke alone in the New Testament can be compared. His mind is imbued with that combination of Hebrew and Greek thought which is best known in the writings of Philo. His general typological mode of thinking, his use of the allegorical method, as well as the adoption of many terms that are most familiar in Alexandrian thought, all reveal the Hellenistic mind. Yet his fundamental conceptions are in full accord with the teaching of Paul and of the Johannine writings.
The central position assigned to Christ, the high estimate of His person, the saving significance of His death, the general trend of the ethical teaching, the writer's opposition to asceticism and his esteem for the rulers and teachers of the church, all bear out the inference that he belonged to a Christian circle dominated by Pauline ideas. The author and his readers alike were not personal disciples of Jesus, but had received the gospel from those who had heard the Lord (Heb 2:3) and who were no longer living (Heb 13:7). He had lived among his readers, and had probably been their teacher and leader; he is now separated from them but he hopes soon to return to them again (Heb 13:18 f).
Is it possible to give a name to this person?
Although the Pauline tradition itself proves nothing, the internal evidence is conclusive against it. We know enough about Paul to be certain that he could not have written Hebrews, and that is all that can be said with confidence on the question of authorship. The style and language, the categories of thought and the method of argument, all differ widely from those of any writings ascribed to Paul. The latter quotes the Old Testament from the Hebrew and Septuagint, but He only from Septuagint. Paul's formula of quotation is, "It is written" or "The scripture saith"; that of Hebrews, "God," or "The Holy Spirit," or "One somewhere saith." For Paul the Old Testament is law, and stands in antithesis to the New Testament, but in Hebrews the Old Testament is covenant, and is the "shadow" of the New Covenant. Paul's characteristic terms, "Christ Jesus," and "Our Lord Jesus Christ," are never found in Hebrews; and "Jesus Christ" only 3 times (10:10; 13:8), and "the Lord" (for Christ) only twice (2:3; 7:14)--phrases used by Paul over 600 times (Zahn). Paul's Christology turns around the death, resurrection and living presence of Christ in the church, that of Hebrews around His high-priestly function in heaven. Their conceptions of God differ accordingly. In Hebrews it is Judaistic-Platonistic, or (in later terminology) Deistic. The revelation of the Divine Fatherhood and the consequent immanence of God in history and in the world had not possessed the author s mind as it had Paul's. Since the present world is conceived in Hebrews as a world of "shadows," God could only intervene in it by mediators.
The experience and conception of salvation are also different in these two writers. There is no evidence in Hebrews of inward conflict and conversion and of constant personal relation with Christ, which constituted the entire spiritual life of Paul. The apostle's central doctrine, that of justification by faith, does not appear in Hebrews. Faith is less the personal, mystical relation with Christ, that it is for Paul, than a general hope which lays hold of the future to overcome the present; and salvation is accomplished by cleansing, sanctification and perfection, not by justification. While Paul's mind was not uninfluenced by Hellenistic thought, as we find it in Alexandria (as, e.g. in Col and Eph), it nowhere appears in his epistles so clearly and prominently as it does in Hebrews. Moreover, the author of Hebrews was probably a member of the community to which he writes (Heb 13:18 f), but Paul never stood in quite the relation supposed here to any church. Finally, Paul could not have written Heb 2:3, for he emphatically declares that he did not receive his gospel from the older disciples (Gal 1:12; 2:6).
The general Christian ideas on which He was in agreement with Paul were part of the heritage which the apostle had left to all the churches. The few more particular affinities of Hebrews with certain Pauline writings (e.g. Heb 2:2 parallel Gal 3:19; Heb 12:22; 3:14 parallel Gal 4:25; Heb 2:10 parallel Rom 11:36; also with Ephesians; see yon Soden, Hand-Commentar, 3) are easily explicable either as due to the author's reading of Paul's Epistles or as reminiscences of Pauline phrases that were current in the churches. But they are too few and slender to rest upon them any presumption against the arguments which disprove the Pauline tradition.
The passage that is most conclusive against the Pauline authorship (Heb 2:3) is equally conclusive against any other apostle being the author. But almost every prominent name among the Christians of the second generation has been suggested. The epistle itself excludes Timothy (Heb 13:23), and Titus awaits his turn. Otherwise Luke, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Silas, Apollos, Priscilla and Aquila, Philip the Deacon, and Aristion have all had their champions.
The first two, Luke and Clement, were brought in through their connection with Paul. Where it was recognized that a direct Pauline authorship could not be maintained, the Pauline tradition might still be retained, if the epistle could be assigned to one of the apostle's disciples. These two were fixed upon as being well-known writers. But this very fact reveals the improbability of theory. Similar arguments from language and thought to those derived from the comparison of Hebrews with the Pauline writings avail also in the comparison of Hebrews with the writings of Lk and Clement. Both these disciples of the apostle adhere much closer to his system of thought than Hebrews does, and they reveal none of the influences of Alexandrian thought, which is predominant in Hebrews.
(b) Barnabas; Priscilla and Aquila; Philip; Aristion; Apollos
Of all the other persons suggested, so little is known that it is impossible to establish, with any convincing force, an argument for or against their authorship.
(i) Barnabas was a Levite of Cyprus (Acts 4:36), and once a companion of Paul (Acts 13:2 ff). Another ancient writing is called "the Epistle of Barnabas," but it has no affinity with Hebrews. The coincidence of the occurrence of the word "consolation" in Barnabas' name (Acts 4:36) and in the writer's description of Hebrews (13:22) is quite irrelevant. Tertullian's tradition is the only positive argument in favor of the Barnabas theory. It has been argued against it that Barnabas, being a Levite, could not have shown the opposition to the Levitical system, and the unfamiliarity with it (Heb 7:27; 9:4), which is supposed to mark our epistle. But the author's Levitical system was derived, not from the Hebrew Old Testament, nor from the Jerusalem temple, but from Jewish tradition; and the supposed inaccuracies as to the daily sin offering (7:27), and the position of the golden altar of incense (9:4) have been traced to Jewish tradition (see Moffatt, Introduction, 438). And the writer's hostility to the Levitical system is not nearly as intense as that of Paul to Pharisaism. There is nothing that renders it intrinsically impossible that Barnabas was the author, nor is anything known of him that makes it probable; and if he was, it is a mystery why the tradition was confined to Africa.
(ii) Harnack has argued the probability of a joint authorship by Priscilla and Aquila. The interchange of "I" and "we" he explains as due to a dual authorship by persons intimately related, but such an interchange of the personal "I" and the epistolary "we" can be paralleled in the Epistles of Paul (e.g. Romans) where no question of joint authorship arises. The probable relation of the author to a church in Rome may suit Priscilla arid Aquila (compare Rom 16:5 with Heb 13:22-24), but even if this interpretation of the aforementioned passages were correct, it is possible and probable that Luke, Barnabas, Apollos, and certainly Clement, stood in a similar relation to a Roman church. Harnack, on this theory, explains the disappearance of the author's name as due to prejudice against women teachers. This is the only novel point in favor of this theory as compared with several others; and it does not explain why Aquila's name should not have been retained with the address. The evidences adduced of a feminine mind behind the epistle are highly disputable. On the other hand, a female disciple of Paul's circle would scarcely assume such authority in the church as the author of Hebrews does (13:17 f; compare 1 Cor 14:34 f). And nothing that is known of Priscilla and Aquila would suggest the culture and the familiarity with Alexandrian thought possessed by this writer. Acts 18:26 does not prove that they were expert and cultured teachers, but only that they knew and could repeat the salient points of Paul's early preaching. So unusual a phenomenon as this theory supposes demands more evidence to make it even probable. (But see Rendel Harris, Sidelights on New Testament Research, 148-76.)
(iii) Philip the Deacon and Aristion, "a disciple of the Lord" mentioned by Papias, are little more than names to us. No positive knowledge of either survives on which any theory can be built. It is probable that both were personal disciples of the Lord, and they could not therefore have written Heb 2:3.
(iv) Apollos has found favor with many scholars from Luther downward. No ancient tradition supports this theory, a fact which tells heavily against it, but not conclusively, for someone must have written the letter, and his name was actually lost to early tradition, unless it were Barnabas, and that tradition too was Unknown to the vast majority of the early churches. All that is known of Apollos suits the author of Hebrews. He may have learned the gospel from "them that heard" (2:3); he was a Jew, "an Alexandrian by race, a learned (or eloquent) man," "mighty in the Scriptures," "he powerfully confuted the Jews" (Acts 18:24 ff), and he belonged to the same Pauline circle as Timothy and Titus (1 Cor 16:10-12; Tit 3:13; compare Heb 13:23). The Alexandrian type of thought, the affinities with Philo, the arguments from Jewish tradition and ceremonial, the fluent style, may all have issued from "an eloquent Jew of Alexandria." But it does not follow that Apollos was the only person of this type. The author may have been a Gentile, as the purity of his Greek language and style suggests; and the combination of Greek and Hebrew thought, which the epistle reflects, and even Philo's terms, may have had a wide currency outside Alexandria, as for instance in the great cosmopolitan cities of Asia. All that can be said is that the author of Hebrews was someone generally like what is known of Apollos, but who he actually was, we must confess with Origen, "God alone knows."
The identity of the first readers of Hebrews is, if possible, more obscure than that of the author. It was written to Christians, and to a specific body or group of Christians (see I above). The title "to Hebrews" might mean properly Palestinian Jews who spoke the Hebrew language, but the fact that the epistle was written in Greek excludes that supposition. It therefore meant Christians of Jewish origin, and gives no indication of their place of residence. The title represents an early inference drawn from the contents of the document, and the tradition it embodies was unanimously accepted from the 2nd century down to the early part of the last century. Now, however, a considerable body of critics hold that the original readers were Gentiles. The question is entirely one of inference from the contents of the epistle itself.
1. General Character of the Readers:
The readers, like the writer, received the gospel first from "them that heard" (Heb 2:3), from the personal disciples of the Lord, but they were not of their number. They had witnessed "signs and wonders" and "manifold powers" and "gifts of the Holy Spirit" (Heb 2:4). Their conversion had been thorough, and their faith and Christian life had been of a high order. They had a sound knowledge of the first principles of Christ (Heb 6:1 ff). They had become "partakers of Christ," and had need only to "hold fast the beginning of (their) confidence firm unto the end" (Heb 3:14). They had been fruitful in good works, ministering unto the saints (Heb 6:10), enduring suffering and persecution, and sympathizing with whose who were imprisoned (Heb 10:32-34). All this had been in former days which appeared now remote. Their rulers and ministers of those days are now dead (Heb 13:7). And they themselves have undergone a great change. While they should have been teachers, they have become dull of hearing, and have need again to be taught the rudiments of the first principles of the gospel (Heb 5:12), and they are in danger of a great apostasy from the faith. They need warning against "an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God" (Heb 3:12). They are become sluggish (Heb 6:12), profane like Esau (Heb 12:16), worldly-minded (Heb 13:5). Perhaps their religion was tending toward a false asceticism and outward works (Heb 13:4,9). And now that this moral dulness and spiritual indifference had fallen upon them, they are being subjected to a new test by persecution from outside (Heb 10:36; 12:4), which renders the danger of their falling away from the faith all the more imminent. The author apparently bases his claim to warn them on the fact that he had been a teacher among them, and hoped soon to return to them (Heb 13:18 f). The same might be said perhaps of Timothy (Heb 13:23). Both author and readers had friends in Italy (Heb 13:24) who were with the author when he wrote, either in Italy saluting the readers outside, or outside, saluting the readers in Italy. In all this there is little or nothing to help to fix the destination of the letter, for it might be true at some time or other of any church.
The old tradition that the readers were Jews claims some more definite support from the epistle itself. The writer assumes an intimate knowledge of the Old Testament and of Jewish ceremonial on their part. The fathers of the Hebrew race are also their fathers (Heb 1:1; 3:9). The humanity that Christ assumed and redeemed is called "the seed of Abraham" (Heb 2:16). All this, however, might stand in reference to a Gentilechurch, for the early Christians, without distinction of race, regarded themselves as the true Israel and heirs of the Hebrew revelation, and of all that related to it (1 Cor 10:1; Gal 3:7 ff; 4:21 ff; Rom 4:11-18). Still there is force in Zahn's argument that "Hebrews does not contain a single sentence in which it is so much as intimated that the readers became members of God's people who descended from Abraham, and heirs of the promise given to them and their forefathers, and how they became such" (Intro to New Testament, II, 323). Zahn further finds a direct proof in Heb 13:13 that "both the readers and the author belong to the Jewish people," which he interprets as "meaning that the readers were to renounce fellowship with the Jewish people who had rejected Jesus, to confess the crucified Jesus, and to take upon themselves all the ignominy that Jesus met at the hands of his countrymen" (ibid., 324-25). But that is too large an inference to draw from a figurative expression which need not, and probably does not, mean more than an exhortation to rely on the sacrifice of Christ, rather than upon any external rules and ceremomes. Nor were the "divers and strange teachings" about marriage and meats (13:4,9) necessarily Jewish doctrines. They might be the doctrines of an incipient Gnosticism which spread widely throughout the Christian churches, both Jewish and gentile, toward the end of the 1st century. There is otherwise no evidence that the apostasy, of which the readers stood in danger, was into Judaism, but it was rather a general unbelief and "falling away from the living God" (3:12).
It is the whole argument of the epistle, rather than any special references, that produced the tradition, and supports the view, that the readers were Jews. The entire message of the epistle, the dominant claims of Christ and of the Christian faith, rests upon the supposition that the readers held Moses, Aaron, the Jewish priesthood, the old Covenant and the Levitical ritual, in the highest esteem. The author's argument is: You will grant the Divine authority and greatness of Moses, Aaron and the Jewish institutions: Christ is greater than they; therefore you ought to be faithful to Him. He assumes an exclusively Jewish point of view in the minds of his readers as his major premise. He could scarcely do that, if they had been Gentiles. Paul, when writing to the mixed church at Rome, relates his philosophy of the Christian revelation to both Jewish and Gentilepre-Christian revelation. Gentile Christians adopted the Jewish tradition as their own in consequence of, and secondary to, their attachment to Christianity. Even Judaizing GentileChristians, such as may be supposed to have belonged to the Galatian and Corinthian churches, adopted some parts of the Jewish law only as a supplement to Christianity, but not as its basis.
Von Soden and others have argued with much reason that these Christians were not in danger of falling back into Judaism from Christianity, but rather of falling away from all faith into unbelief and materialism, like the Israelites in the wilderness (Heb 3:7 ff), or Esau (Heb 12:16). With all its references to Old Testament sacrifice and ceremonial, the letter contains not a single warning against reviving them, nor any indications that the readers were in danger of so doing (Hand-Commentar, 12-16). But it has been too readily assumed that these facts prove that the readers were not Jews. The pressure of Social influence and persecution rendered Jews and Jewish Christians, as well as GentileChristians, liable to apostatize to heathenism or irreligion (The Wisdom of Solomon 2:10,20; 2 Macc 4; 6; 7; Philo, De Migratione Abrahami, XVI; Mt 24:10,12; Acts 20:30; 1 Cor 10:7,14; 2 Thess 2:4; 1 Jn 2:18; 5:21; Pliny Epistle X, 96). Von Soden's argument really cuts the other way. If the writer had been dealing with Gentile Christians who were in danger of relapsing into heathenism or of falling into religious indifference, his argument from the shadowy and temporary glories of Judaism to the perfect salvation in Christ would avail nothing, because, for such, his premises would depend upon his conclusion. But if they were Jewish Christians, even though leaning toward heathenism, his argument is well calculated to call up on its side all the dormant force of their early religious training. He is not arguing them out of a "subtle Judaism" quickened by the zeal of a propaganda (Moffatt, Introduction, 449-50), but from "drifting away" in Heb (2:1), from "neglect" (2:3), from "an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God" (3:12), from "disobedience" (4:11), from "a dulness of hearing" (5:11), but into "diligence .... that ye be not sluggish" (6:11 f), into "boldness and patience" (10:35 f), and to "lift up the hands that hang down, and the palsied knees" (12:12); and this he might well do by his appeal to their whole religious experience, both Jewish and Christian, and to the whole religious history of their race.
3. The Locality of the Readers:
The question of the locality of these "Hebrews" remains a matter for mere conjecture. Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, Colosse, Ephesus, Berea, Ravenna and other places have been suggested. Tradition, since Clement of Alexandria, fixed on Jerusalem, but on the untenable ground that the letter was written to Aramaic-speaking Jews. The undisputed fact that it was written in Greek tells against Jerusalem. So does the absence of all reference to the temple ritual, and the mention of almsgiving as the chief grace of the "Hebrews" (6:10). Jerusalem received rather than gave alms. Nor is it likely that all the personal disciples of the Lord would have died out in Jerusalem (2:3). And it could not be charged against the mother church that it had produced no teachers (5:12). These points also tell with almost equal force against any Palestinian locality.
Alexandria was suggested as an alternative to Jerusalem, on the supposition that those references to Jewish ritual which did not correspond with the Jerusalem ritual (Heb 7:27; 9:4; 10:11) might refer to the temple at Leontopolis. But the ritual system of the epistle is that of the tabernacle and of tradition, and not of any temple. The Alexandrian character of the letter has bearing on the identity of the author, but not so much on that of his readers. The erroneous idea that Paul was the author arose in Alexandria, but it would have been least likely to arise where the letter was originally sent.
Rome has lately found much favor. We first learn of the existence of the letter at Rome. The phrase "they of Italy salute you" (Heb 13:24) implies that either the writer or his readers were in Italy. It may be more natural to think of the writer, with a small group of Italian friends away from home, sending greetings to Italy, than to suppose that a greeting from Italy generally was sent to a church at a distance. It is probable that a body of Jewish Christians existed in Rome, as in other large cities of the Empire. But this view does not, as von Soden thinks, explain any coincidences between Hebrews and Romans. A Roman origin might. It could explain the use of Hebrews by Clement. But the letter might also have come to Rome by Clement's time, even though it was originally sent elsewhere. The slender arguments in favor of Rome find favor chiefly because no arguments can be adduced in favor of any other place.
The latest date for the composition of Hebrews is clearly fixed as earlier than 96 AD by reason of its use by Clement of Rome about that time. There is no justification for the view that Hebrews shows dependence on Josephus. The earliest date cannot be so definitely fixed. The apparent dependence of Hebrews on Paul's Epistles, Galatians, 1 Corinthians and Romans, brings it beyond 50 AD.
2. Conversion and History of Readers:
But we have data in the epistle itself which require a date considerably later. The readers had been converted by personal disciples of the Lord (Heb 2:3). They did not, therefore, belong to the earliest group of Christians. But it is not necessary to suppose a long interval between the Lord's ascension and their conversion. The disciples were scattered widely from Jerusalem by the persecution that followed the death of Stephen (Acts 8:1). "We may well believe that the vigorous preaching of Stephen would set a wave in motion which would be felt even at Rome" (Sanday, Romans, xxviii). They are not, therefore, necessarily to be described as Christians of the 2nd generation in the strict chronological sense. But the letter was written a considerable time after their conversion. They have had time for great development in Heb (5:12). They have forgotten the former days after their conversion (10:32). Their early leaders are now dead (13:7). Yet the majority of the church still consists of the first converts (2:3; 10:32). And although no argument can be based upon the mention of 40 years (3:9), for it is only an incidental phrase in a quotation, yet no longer interval could lie between the founding of the church and the writing of the letter. It might be shorter. And the church may have been founded at any time from 32 to 70 AD.
The doctrinal development represented in Hebrews stands midway between the system of the later Pauline Epistles (Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians) and that of the Johannine Writings. The divers and strange teachings mentioned include only such ascetic tendencies about meat and marriage (Heb 13:4,9) as are reflected in Paul's Epistles early and late. There is no sign of the appearance of the full-blown heresies of the Ebionites, Docetists, and Gnostics, which became prevalent before the end of the 1st century. On the other hand the Logos-doctrine as the interpretation of the person of Christ (Heb 1:1-4) is more fully thought out than in Paul, but less explicit, and less assimilated with the purpose of Christianity, than in the Fourth Gospel.
It has been argued that the letter must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, because in writing to a Jewish community, and especially in dealing with Jewish ritual, the writer would have referred to that event, if it had happened. This point would be relevant, if the letter had been addressed to Jerusalem, which is highly improbable. But, at a distance, an author so utterly unconcerned with contemporary history could easily have omitted mention of even so important a fact. For in fact the author never mentions the temple or its ritual. His system is that of the tabernacle of the Old Testament and of Jewish tradition. The writer's interest is not in historical Judaism, and his omission to mention the great catastrophe does not prove that it had not occurred. The use of the present tense of the ritual does not imply its present continuance. "The present expresses the fact that so it is enjoined in the law, the past that with the founding of the New Covenant the old had been abolished" (Peake, Hebrews, 39).
A point of contact with contemporary history is found in the fact that Timothy was still living and active when Hebrews was written (13:23), but it does not carry us far. Timothy was a young man and already a disciple, when Paul visited Galatia on his 2nd journey about 46 AD (Acts 16:1). And he may have lived to the end of the century or near to it. It cannot be safely argued from the mere mention of his name alone, that Paul and his other companions were dead.
Two incidents in the history of the readers are mentioned which afford further ground for a somewhat late date. Immediately after their conversion, they suffered persecution, "a great conflict of sufferings; partly, being made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, becoming partakers with them that were so used" (Heb 10:32 f). And now again, when the letter is written, they are entering upon another time of similar trial, in which they "have need of patience" (Heb 10:36), though they "have not yet resisted unto blood" (Heb 12:4). Their leaders, at least, it would appear, the writer and Timothy, have also been in prison, but one is at liberty and the other expects to be soon (Heb 13:19,23). It has been conjectured that the first persecution was that under Nero in 64 AD, and the second, that in the reign of Domitian, after 81 AD. But when it is remembered that in some part of the Empire Christians were almost always under persecution, and that the locale of these readers is very uncertain, these last criteria do not justify any dogmatizing. It is certain that the letter was written in the second half of the 1st century. Certain general impressions, the probability that the first apostles and leaders of the church were dead, the absence of any mention of Paul, the development of Paul's theological ideas in a new medium, the disappearance of the early enthusiasm, the many and great changes that had come over the community, point strongly to the last quarter of the century. The opinions of scholars at present seem to converge about the year 80 AD or a little later.
|| I. The Revelation of God in His Son (Heb 1-2).
1. Christ the completion of revelation (Heb 1:1-3).
2. Christ's superiority over the angels (Heb 1:4 ff).
(1) Because lie is a Son (Heb 1:4-6).
(2) Because His reign is eternal (Heb 1:7 ff).
3. The dangers of neglecting salvation through the Son (Heb 2:1-4).
4. The Son and humanity (Heb 2:5 ff).
(1) The lowliness and dignity of man (Heb 2:5-8).
(2) Necessity for the Incarnation (Heb 2:9 ff).
(a) To fulfill God's gracious purpose (Heb 2:9 f) .
(b) That the Saviour and saved might be one (Heb 2:11-15).
(c) That the Saviour may sympathize with the saved (Heb 2:16 ff).
II. The Prince of Salvation (Heb 3:1 through 4:13).
1. Christ as Son superior to Moses as servant (Heb 3:1-6).
2. Consequences of Israel's unbelief (Heb 3:7-11).
3. Warning the "Hebrews" against similar unbelief (Heb 3:12 ff).
4. Exhortations to faithfulness (Heb 4:1-13).
(1) Because a rest remains for the people of God (Heb 4:1-11).
(2) Because the omniscient God is judge (Heb 4:12 f).
III. The Great High Priest (Heb 4:14 through 10:18).
1. Christ's priesthood the Christian's confidence (Heb 4:14-16).
2. Christ has the essential qualifications for priesthood (Heb 5:1-10).
(1) Sympathy with men (Heb 5:1-3).
(2) God's appointment (Heb 5:4-10).
3. The spiritual dulness of the Hebrews (Heb 5:11 through 6:12).
(1) Their lack of growth in knowledge (Heb 5:11 ff).
(2) "Press on unto perfection" (Heb 6:1-3).
(3) The danger of falling away from Christ (Heb 6:4-8).
(4) Their past history ground for hoping better things (Heb 6:9-12).
4. God's oath the ground of Christ's priesthood and of the believer's hope (Heb 6:13 ff).
5. Christ a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb 7:1 ff).
(1) The history of Melchizedek (Heb 7:1-3).
(2) The superiority of his order over that of Aaron (Heb 7:4-10).
(3) Supersession of the Aaronic priesthood (Heb 7:11-19).
(4) Superiority of Christ's priesthood (Heb 7:20-24).
(5) Christ a priest befitting us (Heb 7:24 ff).
6. Christ the true high priest (Heb 8:1 through 10:18).
(1) Because He entered the true sanctuary (Heb 8:1-5).
(2) Because He is priest of the New Covenant (Heb 8:6 ff).
(3) A description of the old tabernacle and its services (Heb 9:1-7).
(4) Ineffectiveness of its sacrifices (Heb 9:8-10).
(5) Superiority of Christ's sacrifice (Heb 9:11-14).
(6) The Mediator of the New Covenant through His own blood (Heb 9:15 ff).
(7) Weakness of the sacrifices of the law (Heb 10:1-5).
(8) Incarnation for the sake of sacrifice (Heb 10:6-9).
(9) The one satisfactory sacrifice (Heb 10:10-18).
IV. Practical Exhortations (Heb 10:19 through 13:25).
1. Draw near to God and hold fast the faith (Heb 10:19-23).
2. The responsibility of Christians and the judgment of God (Heb 10:24-31).
3. Past faithfulness a ground for present confidence (Heb 10:32 ff).
4. The household of faith (Heb 11:1 ff).
(1) What is faith? (Heb 11:1-3).
(2) The examples of faith (Heb 11:4-32).
(3) The triumphs of faith (Heb 11:33 ff).
5. Run the race looking unto Jesus (Heb 12:1-3).
6. Sufferings as discipline from the Father (Heb 12:4-11).
7. The duty of helping and loving the brethren (Heb 12:12-17).
8. Comparison of the trials and privileges of Christians with those of the Israelites (Heb 12:18 ff).
9. Various duties (Heb 13:1-17).
(1) Moral and social relations (Heb 13:1-6).
(2) Loyalty to leaders (Heb 13:7 f).
(3) Beware of Jewish heresies (Heb 13:9-4).
(4) Ecclesiastical worship and order (Heb 13:15-17).
10. Personal affairs and greetings (Heb 13:18 ff).
(1) A request for the prayers of the church (Heb 13:18 f).
(2) A prayer for the church (Heb 13:20 f) .
(3) "Bear with the word of exhortation" (Heb 13:22).
(4) "Our brother Timothy" (Heb 13:23).
The theme of the epistle is the absoluteness of the Christian religion, as based-upon the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ, the one and only mediator of salvation. The essence of Christ's preeminence is that He fully realizes in His own person the principles of revelation and reconciliation. It is made manifest in His superiority over the Jewish system of salvation, which He therefore at once supersedes and fulfils. The author's working concept is the Logos-doctrine of Philo; and the empirical data to which it is related is the religious history of Israel, as it culminates in Christianity. He makes no attempt to prove either his ideal first principles or his historical premises, and his philosophy of religion takes no account of the heathen world. The inner method of his argument is to fit Judaism and Christianity into the Logos-concept; but his actual is related to the ideal in the way of Plato's antithesis, of shadow and reality, of pattern and original, rather than in Aristotle's way of development, although the influence of the latter method may often be traced, as in the history of faith, which is carried back to the beginnings of history, but is made perfect only in the Christian consummation (Heb 11:40). In a number of other ideas the teleological movement may be seen cutting across the categories of shadow and reality (Heb 1:3; 1:10; 4:8 f; 5:8 f; 9:12; 10:12; 12:22).
The form of the argument may be described as either rabbinical or Alexandrian. The writer, after laying down his proposition, proceeds to prove it by quotations from the Old Testament, taken out of their context and historical connection, adapted and even changed to suit his present purpose. This practice was common to Palestinian and Alexandrian writers; as was also the use of allegory which plays a large part in Hebrews (e.g. Heb 3:7 through 4:11; 13:11 f). But the writer's allegorical method differs from that of the rabbis in that it is like Philo's, part of a conscious philosophy, according to which the whole of the past and present history of the world is only a shadow of the true realities which are laid up in heaven (Heb 8:5; 9:23 f; 10:1). His interest in historical facts, in Old Testament writers, in Jewish institutions and even in the historical life of Jesus, is quite subordinate to his prepossession with the eternal and heavenly realities which they, in more or less shadowy fashion, represent. That the affinities of Hebrews are Alexandrian rather than Palestinian is further proved by many philological and literary correspondences with The Wisdom of Solomon and Philo. Most of the characteristic terms and phrases of the epistle are also found in these earlier writers. It has been argued that Hebrews and Wisdom came from the same hand, and it seems certain that the author of Hebrews was familiar with both Wisdom and the writings of Philo (Plumptre in The Expositor, I, 329 ff, 409 ff; von Soden in Hand-Commentar, 5-6). In Philo the dualism of appearance and reality finds its ultimate synthesis in his master-conception of the Logos, and although this term does not appear in Hebrews in Philo's sense, the doctrine is set forth in Philonic phraseology in the opening verses (1:1-4). As Logos, Christ excels the prophets as revealer of God, is superior to the angels who Were the mediators of the old Covenant, and is more glorious than Moses as the builder of God's true tabernacle, His eternal house; He is a greater Saviour than Joshua, for He brings his own to final rest; and He supersedes the Aaronic priesthood, for while they ministered in a "holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true," under a "law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things" (Heb 9:24; 10:1), He "having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands .... nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb 9:11 f).
Yet it is possible to exaggerate the dependence of Hebrews on Alexandrian thought. Deeper than the allegorical interpretation of passages culled from the Septuagint, deeper than the Logos-philosophy which formed the framework of his thought, is the writer's experience and idea of the personal Christ. His central interest lies, not in the theoretical scheme which he adopts, but in the living person who, while He is the eternal reality behind all shadows, and the very image of God's essence, is also our brother who lived and suffered on earth, the author of our salvation, our "fore-runner within the veil," who "is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them" (Heb 1:1-4; 2:14 ff; 2:10; 5:7-9; 4:14-15; 6:20; 7:25). As in Paul and John, so in Hebrews, the historical and ever-living Christ comes in as an original and creative element, which transforms the abstract philosophy of Hellenistic thought into a living system of salvation. Because of His essential and personal preeminence over the institutions and personalities of the old Covenant, Christ has founded a new Covenant, given a new revelation and proclaimed a new gospel. The writer never loses sight of the present bearing of these eternal realities on the lives of his readers. They are for their warning against apostasy, for their encouragement in the face of persecution, and for their undying hope while they `run the race that is set before (them), looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of .... faith (Heb 2:3; 3:12 ff; 4:1 ff; 10:28 ff; 12:1 f,22 ff).
LITERATURE.
(1) Commentary by A. S. Peake, Century Bible; A.B. Davidson, Bible Handbooks; Marcus Dods, Expositor's Greek Test.; T.C. Edwards, Expositor's Bible; F. Rendall (London, 1888); Westcott3 (1903); von Soden, Hand-Commentar; Hollmann, Die Schriften des New Testament.
(2) Introductions by Moffatt, Introduction to the Lit. of the New Testament; A. B. Bruce in HDB; von Soden in EB; Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament; H.H.B Ayles, Destination, Date, and Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews; Harnack, "Probabilia, uber die Addresse und den Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes," ZNTW, I (1900); W. Wrede, Das literarische Ratsel des Hebraerbriefes (1906).
(3) Theology: Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews; Milligan, The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews; Menegoz, La theologie de l'epitre aux Hebreux. For fuller list, see Moffatt, in the work quoted
T. Rees
HEBREWS, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE
(Euaggelion kath' Hebraious, to Hebraikon, to Ioudaikon; Evangelium Hebraeorum, Judeorum):
1. References in Early Church History
2. Its Character and Contents
3. Its Circulation and Language
4. Relation to Matthew
5. Time of Composition
6. Uncanonical Sayings and Incidents
7. Conclusion
LITERATURE
"The Gospel according to the Hebrews" was a work of early Christian literature to which reference is frequently made by the church Fathers in the first five centuries, and of which some twenty or more fragments, preserved in their writings, have come down to us. The book itself has long disappeared. It has, however, been the subject of many critical surmises and discussions in the course of the last century. It has been regarded as the original record of the life of Jesus, the Archimedespoint of the whole gospel history. From it Justin Martyr has been represented as deriving his knowledge of the works and words of Christ, and to it have been referred the gospel quotations found in Justin and other early writers when these deviate in any measure from the text of the canonical gospels. Recent discussions have thrown considerable light upon the problems connected with this Gospel, and a large literature has grown up around it of which the most important works will be noted below.
1. References in Early Church History:
Speaking of Papias Eusebius mentions that he has related the story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the "Gospel according to the Hebrews." This does not prove that Papias was acquainted with this Gospel, for he might have obtained the story, which cannot any longer be regarded as part of John's Gospel, from oral tradition. But there is a certain significance in Eusebius' mentioning it in this connection (Euseb., HE, III, xxxix, 16). Eusebius, speaking of Ignatius and his epp., takes notice of a saying of Jesus which he quotes (Ep. ad Smyrn, iii; compare Lk 24:39), "Take, handle me, and see thatI am not an incorporeal spirit." The saying differs materially from the saying in Luke's Gospel, and Eusebius says he has no knowledge whence it had been taken by Ignatius. Jerome, however, twice over attributes the saying to the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," and Origen quotes it from the "Teaching of Peter." Ignatius may have got the saying from oral tradition, and we cannot, therefore, be sure that he knew this Gospel.
The first early Christian writer who is mentioned as having actually used the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" is Hegesippus, who flourished in the second half of the 2nd century. Eusebius, to whom we owe the reference, tells us that Hegesippus in his Memoirs quotes passages from "the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews" (Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, xxii, 7).
Irenaeus, in the last quarter of the 2nd century, says the Ebionites use only the "Gospel according to Matthew" and reject the apostle Paul, calling him an apostate from the law (Adv. Haer., i. 26, 2). There is reason to believe that there is some confusion in this statement of Irenaeus, for we have the testimony of Eusebius, Jerome and Epiphanius that it was the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" that was used by the Ebionites. With this qualification we may accept Irenaeus as a witness to this Gospel.
Clement of Alexandria early in the 3rd century quotes from it an apocryphal saying with the same formula as he employs for quotation of Holy Scripture (Strom., ii.9). Origen, Clement's successor at Alexandria, has one very striking quotation from the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" (Comm. in Joann, ii), and Jerome says this Gospel is often used by Origen.
Eusebius, in the first half of the 4th century, mentions that the Ebionites use only the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" and take small account of the others (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, xxvii, 4). He has, besides, other references to it, and in his widely known classification of Christian Scriptures into "acknowledged" "disputed," and "rejected," he mentions this Gospel which he says some have placed in the last category, although those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ are delighted with it (Historia Ecclesiastica, III, xxv, 5). Eusebius had himself in all probability seen and handled the book in the library of his friend Pamphilus at Caesarea, where Jerome, half a century later, found it and translated it.
Epiphanius, who lived largely in Palestine, and wrote his treatise on heresies in the latter half of the 4th century, has much to say of the Ebionites, and the Nazarenes. Speaking of the Ebionites, he says they receive the "Gospel according to Matthew" to the exclusion of the others, mentioning that it alone of the New Testament books is in Hebrew speech and Hebrew characters, and is called the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" (Haer., xxx.3). He goes on to say, that their "Gospel according to Matthew," as it is named, is not complete but falsified and mutilated, "and they call it the Hebrew Gospel" (Haer., xxx. 13). The quotations which Epiphanius proceeds to make show that this Gospel diverges considerably from the canonical Gospel of Mt and may well be that according to the Hebrews. It is more likely that "the Gospel according to Matthew, very full, in Hebrew," of which Epiphanius speaks, when telling about the Nazarene, is the Hebrew "Gospel of Matthew" attested by Papias, Irenaeus, and a widespread early tradition. But as Epiphanius confesses he does not know whether it has the genealogies, it is clear he was not himself acquainted with the book.
Jerome, toward the end of the 4th century, is our chief authority for the circulation and use of the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," although his later statements on the subject do not always agree with the earlier. He was proud of being "trilinguis," acquainted with Hebrew as well as with Latin and Greek. "There is a Gospel," he says, "which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, which I lately translated from the Hebrew tongue into Greek and which is called by many the authentic Gospel of Matthew" (Commentary on Matthew 12:13). The fact here mentioned, that he translated the work, seems to imply that this Gospel was really something different from the canonical Mt which he had in his hands. In another place, however, he writes: "Matthew .... first of all composed the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words, in Judea, for behoof of those of the circumcision who had believed, and it is not quite certain who afterward translated it into Greek. But the very Hebrew is preserved to this day in the Caesarean library, which Pamphilus the Martyr, with such care, collected. I myself was allowed the opportunity of copying it by the Nazarenes in Berea who use this volume. In which it is to be observed that the evangelist, when he uses the testimonies of the Old Testament, either in his own person, or in that of the Lord and Saviour, does not follow the authority of the Septuagint translators, but the Hebrew. Of those, the following are two examples: `Out of Egypt have I called my Son' (Mt 2:15 the King James Version); and `He shall be called a Nazarene' (Mt 2:23)" (De Vir. Ill., iii). It certainly looks as if in the former instance Jerome meant the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and in the latter the well-authenticated Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. At a later time, however, Jerome appears to withdraw this and to introduce a confusing or even contradictory note. His words are: "In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was written indeed in the Chaldee-Syr (Aramaic) language, but in Hebrew characters, which the Nazarenes use as the `Gospel of the Apostles,' or as most people think `according to Matthew,' which also is contained in the library at Caesarea, the narrative says" (Adv. Pelag., iii.2). As he proceeds, he quotes passages which are not in the canonical Mt. He also says: "That Gospel which is called the Gospel of the Hebrews which was latedly translated by me into Greek and Latin, and was used frequently by Origen" (Catal. Script. Eccl., "Jacobus"). Jerome's notices of the actual Gospel were frequent, detailed and unequivocal.
Nicephorus at the beginning of the 9th century puts the Gospel according to the Hebrews in his list of disputed books of the New Testament along with the Apocalypse of John, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas. This list is believed to rest upon an authority of about the year 500 AD, and, in the stichometry attached, this Gospel is estimated to have occupied 2,200 lines, while the canonical Mt occupied 2,500.
Codex Lambda of the 9th century, discovered by Tischendorf, and now in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, has marginal notes affixed to four passages of Matthew giving the readings of to Ioudaikon, the lost Gospel according to the Hebrews (Scrivener, Textual Criticism, I4, 160; see also PlateXI , 30, p. 131).
2. Its Character and Contents:
All that survives, and all that we are told, of this work, show that it was of the nature of a Gospel, and that it was written in the manner of the Synoptic Gospels. But it seems not to have acquired at any time ecclesiastical standing outside the very limited circles of Jewish Christians who preferred it. And it never attained canonical authority. The Muratorian Fragment has no reference to it. Irenaeus knew that the Ebionites used only the Gospel according to Matthew in Hebrew, although, as we have seen, this may be really the Gospel according to the Hebrews; but his fourfold Gospel comprises the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which we know. There is no reason to believe that it was the source of the quotations made by Justin from the Apomnemoneumata, or of quotations made anonymously by others of the early Fathers. Like the Synoptic Gospels, however, it contained narratives of events as well as sayings and discourses. It had an account of John the Baptist's ministry, of the baptism of Jesus, of the call of the apostles, of the woman taken in adultery, of the Last Supper, of the denial of Peter, of appearances of Jesus after the resurrection; and it contained the Lord's Prayer, and sayings of Jesus, like the forgiveness of injuries seventy times seven, the counsel to the rich young ruler, and others. One or two sayings have a Gnostic tinge, as when Jesus calls the Holy Spirit His mother, and is made to express His unwillingness to eat the flesh of the Passover Lamb. There are apocryphal additions, even where incidents and sayings are narrated belonging to the canonical Gospels, and there are sayings and incidents wholly apocryphal in the fragments of the Gospel which have survived. But these superfluities do not imply any serious deviation from Catholic doctrine; they only prove, as Professor Zahn says, "the earnestness of the redactor of the Gospel according to the Hebrews to enrich the only Gospel which Jewish Christians possessed up to that time from the still unexhausted source of private oral tradition" (GK, II, 717).
The very title of the work suggests that it circulated among Jewish Christians. Those Christians of Palestine to whom Jerusalem was the ecclesiastical center betook themselves, after the troubles which befell the Holy City, to the less frequented regions beyond the Jordan, and were thus cut off from the main stream of catholic Christianity.
3. Its Circulation and Language:
It was accordingly easier for the spirit of exclusiveness to assert itself among them and also for heretical tendencies to develop. The Ebionites went farthest in this direction. They denied the supernatural birth of our Lord, and insisted upon the binding character of the Law for all Christians. The Nazarenes, as all Jewish Christians were called at first, observed the ceremonial law themselves, but did not impose it upon GentileChristians. And they accepted the catholic doctrine of the person of Christ. It was among a community of these Nazarenes at Berea, the modern Aleppo, that Jerome, during a temporary residence at Chalcis in Northern Syria, found the Gospel according to the Hebrews in circulation. No fewer than 9 times does he mention that this Gospel is their one Gospel, and only once does he connect the Ebionites with them in the use of it. Epiphanius draws a clear line of distinction between the Ebionites and the Nazarenes; and we can scarcely suppose that a Gospel which satisfied the one would be wholly acceptable to the other. There is reason to believe that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was most to the mind of the Hebrew Christians, and that it took different forms in the hands of the sects into which the Jewish Christian church became divided. Thus the Gospel of the Nazarenes was the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which in all probability had some affinity with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. The Gospel of the Ebionites, which seems to have been the same as the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, was something of a more divergent doctrinal tendency suited to the exclusive and heretical views of that sect. But it is not easy to reconcile the statements of Epiphanius with those of Eusebius and Jerome.
That the Hebrew tongue in which Papins says Matthew composed his Logia was the Aramaic of Palestine is generally accepted. This Aramaic was closely akin to the Syriac spoken between the Mediterranean and the Tigris. It was the same as the Chaldee of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, of which examples have so recently been found in the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine at Assouan. Eusebius and Jerome are emphatic and precise in recording the fact that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was not only Hebrew or Aramaic in composition, but written in the square Hebrew characters, so different from the Old Hebrew of the Moabite Stone and the Siloam inscription. That there was a Greek translation before the time of Jerome of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was used by Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and others, is strenuously affirmed by Professor Harnack (Altchristliche Literatur, I, 6 ff) and as strenuously denied by Professor Zahn (GK, II, 648 ff). One reason why the book never attained to any ecclesiastical authority was no doubt its limited circulation in a tongue familiar, outside the circle of Jewish Christians, to only a learned few. For this reason also it is unlikely that it will ever be found, as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd, and other works have been.
It is natural to seek for traces of special relationship between the Gospel according to the Hebrews, circulating among communities of Jewish Christians, and the Gospel according to Matthew which grew up on the soil of Palestine, and which was originally composed in the interest of Jewish Christians, and circulated at a very early period in a Hebrew recension, soon superseded by the canonical Gospel of Matthew and now altogether lost. We have already seen that Irenaeus in all likelihood confused the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew; and that Jerome says the Gospel used by the Nazarenes was called by many the authentic Gospel of Matthew. Moreover, among the fragments that have survived, there are more which resemble Matthew's record than either of the other Synoptics. E.B. Nicholson, after a full and scholarly examination of the fragments and of the references, puts forward the hypothesis that "Matthew wrote at different times the canonical Gospel and the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or, at least, that large part of the latter which runs parallel to the former" (The Gospel according to the Hebrews, 104). The possibility of two editions of the same Gospel-writing coming from the same hand has recently received illustration from Professor. Blass' theory of two recensions of the Acts and of Luke's Gospel to explain the textual peculiarities of these books in Codex Bezae (D). This theory has received the adhesion of eminent scholars, but Nicholson has more serious differences to explain, and it cannot be said that his able argument and admirably marshaled learning have carried conviction to the minds of New Testament scholars.
If we could be sure that Ignatius in his Epistle to the Smyrneans derived the striking saying attributed to our Lord, "Take, handle me, and see thatI am not an incorporeal spirit," from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, we should be able to fix its composition as at any rate within the 1st century. The obscurity of its origin, the primitive cast of its contents, and the respect accorded to it down into the 5th century, have disposed some scholars to assign it an origin not later than our Synoptic Gospels, and to regard it as continuing the Aramaic tradition of the earliest preaching and teaching regarding Christ. The manifestly secondary character of some of its contents seems to be against such an early origin. Professor Zahn is rather disposed to place it not earlier than 130, when, during the insurrection of Bar-cochba, the gulf that had grown up between Jews and Jewish Christians was greatly deepened, and with an exclusively Gentilechurch in Jerusalem, the Jewish Christians had lost their center and broken off into sects. The whole situation seems to him to point to a date somewhere between 130-50 AD. The data for any precise determination of the question are wanting.
6. Uncanonical Sayings and Incidents:
There is a saying which Clement of Alexandria quotes from it as Scripture: "He that wonders shall reign and he that reigns shall rest" (Strom., ii.9). Origen quotes from it a saying of Jesus, reminding us somewhat of Ezek (8:3): "Just now My Mother the Holy Spirit took me by one of my hairs, and bore me away to the great mountain Thabor" (Orig., In Joann., ii; it is quoted several times both by Origen and Jerome). Jerome more than once quotes from it a saying of the Lord to His disciples: "Never be joyful except when ye look on your brother in love" (Hieron. in Eph 5:4; in Ezek 18:7). In his commentary on Mt (6:11) Jerome mentions that he found in the third petition of the Lord's prayer for the difficult and unique Greek word epiousios, which he translates "supersubstantialis," the Aramaic word machar, crastinus, so that the sense would be, "Tomorrow's bread give us today." Of unrecorded incidents the most notable is that of the appearance of the Risen Lord to James: "And when the Lord had given His linen cloth to the servant of the priest, He went to James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour wherein he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he saw Him rising from the dead. Again a little afterward the Lord says, Bring a table and bread. Immediately it is added: He took bread and blessed and brake, and afterward gave it to James the Just and said to him, My brother, eat thy bread for the Son of Man has risen from them that sleep" (Hieron., De Vir. Illustr., "Jacobus").
Jerome also tells that in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, there is the following passage: "Lo, the mother of the Lord and His brethren said unto Him: John the Baptist is baptizing for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them: What sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless perchance this very word which I have spoken is a sin of ignorance" (Hieron., Adv. Pelag., iii.2).
This Gospel is not to be classed with heretical Gospels like that of Marcion, nor with apocryphal Gospels like that of James or Nicodemus. It differed from the former in that it did not deviate from any essential of catholic truth in its representation of our Lord. It differed from the latter in that it narrated particulars mostly relating to our Lord's public ministry, while they occupy themselves with matters of curiosity left unrecorded in the canonical Gospels. It differs from the canonical Gospels only in that it is more florid in style, more diffuse in the relation of incidents, and more inclined to sectional views of doctrine. Its uncanonical sayings and incidents may have come from oral tradition, and they do lend a certain interest and picturesqueness to the narrative. Its language confined it to a very limited sphere, and its sectional character prevented it from ever professing Scriptural authority or attaining to canonical rank.
See also APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS .
LITERATURE.
E.B. Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews (1879); R. Handmann, Das Hebrder-Evangelium: Texte u. Untersuchungen, Band V (1889); Zahn, GK, II, 642-723 (1890); Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, I, 6 ff; II, 1, 625-51 (1897); Neutestamentliche Apocryphen (Hennecke), I, 11-21 (1904).
T. Nicol
See ISRAEL ,RELIGION OF .
he'-brun (chebhron, "league" or "confederacy"; Chebron): One of the most ancient and important cities in Southern Palestine, now known to the Moslems as el Khalil (i.e. Khalil er Rahman, "the friend of the Merciful," i.e. of God, a favorite name for Abraham; compare Jas 2:23). The city is some 20 miles South of Jerusalem, situated in an open valley, 3,040 ft. above sea-level.
Hebron is said to have been rounded before Zoan (i.e. Tanis) in Egypt (Nu 13:22); its ancient name was Kiriath-arba, probably meaning the "Four Cities," perhaps because divided at one time into four quarters, but according to Jewish writers so called because four patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Adam were buried there. According to Josh 15:13 it was so called after Arba, the father of Anak.
Abram came and dwelt by the oaks of MAMRE (which see), "which are in Hebron" Gen (13:18); from here he went to the rescue of Lot and brought him back after the defeat of Chedorlaomer (14:13 f); here his name was changed to Abraham (17:5); to this place came the three angels with the promise of a son (18:1 f); Sarah died here (23:2), and for her sepulcher Abraham bought the cave of Machpelah (23:17); here Isaac and Jacob spent much of their lives (35:27; 37:14); from here Jacob sent Joseph to seek his brethren (37:14), and hence, Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt (46:1). In the cave of Machpelah all the patriarchs and their wives, except Rachel, were buried (49:30 f; 50:13).
2. Times of Joshua and Judges:
The spies visited Hebron and near there cut the cluster of grapes (Nu 13:22 f). HOHAM (which see), king of Hebron, was one of the five kings defeated by Joshua at Beth-horon and slain at Makkedah (Josh 10:3 f). Caleb drove out from Hebron the "three sons of Anak" (Josh 14:12; 15:14); it became one of the cities of Judah (Josh 15:54), but was set apart for the Kohathite Levites (Josh 21:10 f), and became a city of refuge (Josh 20:7). One of Samson's exploits was the carrying of the gate of Gaza "to the top of the mountain that is before Hebron" (Jdg 16:3).
David, when a fugitive, received kindness from the people of this city (1 Sam 30:31); here Abner was treacherously slain by Joab at the gate (2 Sam 3:27), and the sons of Rimmon, after their hands and feet had been cut off, were hanged "beside the pool" (2 Sam 4:12). After the death of Saul, David was here anointed king (2 Sam 5:3) and reigned here 7 1/2 years, until he captured Jerusalem and made that his capital (2 Sam 5:5); while here, six sons were born to him (2 Sam 3:2). In this city Absalom found a center for his disaffection, and repairing there under pretense of performing a vow to Yahweh, he raised the standard of revolt (2 Sam 15:7 f). Josephus mistakenly places here the dream of Solomon (Ant., VIII, ii, 1) which occurred at Gibeon (1 Ki 3:4). Hebron was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Ch 11:10).
Probably during the captivity Hebron came into the hands of Edom, though it appears to have been colonized by returning Jews (Neh 11:25); it was recovered from Edom by Simon Maccabeus (1 Macc 5:65; Josephus, Ant, XII, viii, 6). In the first great revolt against Rome, Simon bar-Gioras captured the city (BJ, IV, ix, 7), but it was retaken, for Vespasian, by his general Cerealis who carried it by storm, slaughtered the inhabitants and burnt it (ibid., 9).
During the Muslim period Hebron has retained its importance on account of veneration to the patriarchs, especially Abraham; for the same reason it was respected by the Crusaders who called it Castellum ad Sanctum Abraham. In 1165 it became the see of a Latin bishop, but 20 years later it fell to the victorious arms of Saladin, and it has ever since remained a fanatic Moslem center, although regarded as a holy city, alike by Moslem, Jew and Christian.
Modern Hebron is a straggling town clustered round the Haram or sacred enclosure built above the traditional cave of MACHPELAH (which see); it is this sacred spot which has determined the present position of the town all through the Christian era, but it is quite evident that an exposed and indefensible situation, running along a valley, like this, could not have been that of earlier and less settled times. From many of the pilgrim narratives, we can gather that for long there had been a tradition that the original site was some distance from the modern town, and, as analogy might suggest, upon a hill. There can be little doubt that the site of the Hebron of Old Testament history is a lofty, olive-covered hill, lying to the West of the present town, known as er Rumeidy. Upon its summit are cyclopian walls and other traces of ancient occupation. In the midst are the ruins of a medieval building known as Der el-Arba`in, the "monastery of the forty" (martyrs) about whom the Hebronites have an interesting folklore tale. In the building are shown the so-called tombs of Jesse and Ruth. Near the foot of the hill are several fine old tombs, while to the North is a large and very ancient Jewish cemetery, the graves of which are each covered with a massive monolith, 5 and 6 ft. long. At the eastern foot of the hill is a perennial spring, `Ain el Judeideh; the water rises in a vault, roofed by masonry and reached by steps. The environs of this hill are full of folklore associations; the summit would well repay a thorough excavation.
A mile or more to the Northwest of Hebron is the famous oak of MAMRE (which see), or "Abraham's oak," near which the Russians have erected a hospice. It is a fine specimen of the Holm oak (Quercus coccifera), but is gradually dying. The present site appears to have been pointed out as that of Abraham's tent since the 12th century; the earlier traditional site was at Ramet el Khalil.
See MAMRE .
Modern Hebron is a city of some 20,000 inhabitants, 85 percent of whom are Moslems and the remainder mostly Jews. The city is divided into seven quarters, one of which is known as that of the "glass blowers" and another as that of the "water-skin makers." These industries, with the manufacture of pottery, are the main sources of trade. The most conspicuous building is the Haram (see MACHPELAH ). In the town are two large open reservoirs the Birket el Qassasin, the "pool of the glass blowers" and Birket es Sultan, "the pool of the Sultan." This latter, which is the larger, is by tradition the site of the execution of the murderers of Ishbosheth (2 Sam 4:12). The Moslem inhabitants are noted for their fanatical exclusiveness and conservatism, but this has been greatly modified in recent years through the patient and beneficent work of Dr. Paterson, of the U. F. Ch. of S. Med. Mission. The Jews, who number about 1,500, are mostly confined to a special ghetto; they have four synagogues, two Sephardic and two Ashkenazic; they are a poor and unprogressive community.
For Hebron (Josh 19:28) see EBRON .
E. W. G. Masterman
(chebhron, "league," "association"):
(1) The third son of Kohath, son of Levi (Ex 6:18; Nu 3:19,27; 1 Ch 6:2,18; 23:12,19).
(2) A son of Mareshah and descendant of Caleb (1 Ch 2:42,43).
See also KORAH .
he'-brun-its (chebhroni): A family of Levites, descendants of Hebron, third son of Kohath (Nu 3:27; 26:58, etc.).
hej:
(1) mecukhah, "a thorn hedge," only in Mic 7:4.; mesukkah, "a hedge" (Isa 5:5); mesukhath chadheq, "a hedge of thorns" (Prov 15:19).
(2) gadher, and geherah, translated "hedges" in the Revised Version (British and American) only in Ps 89:40, elsewhere "fence." GEDERAH (which see) in the Revised Version margin is translated "hedges" (1 Ch 4:23).
(3) na`atsuts, "thorn-hedges" (Isa 7:19).
(4) phragmos, translated "hedge" (Mt 21:33; Mk 12:1; Lk 14:23); "partition" in Eph 2:14, which is its literal meaning. In the Septuagint it is the usual equivalent of the above Hebrew words.
Loose stone walls without mortar are the usual "fences" around fields in Palestine, and this is what gadher and gedherah signify in most passages. Hedges made of cut thorn branches or thorny bushes are very common in the plains and particularly in the Jordan valley.
E. W. G. Masterman
hej'-hog Septuagint echinos, "hedgehog," for qippodh, in Isa 14:23; 34:11; Zeph 2:14, and for qippoz, in Isa 34:15).
See PORCUPINE ;BITTERN ;OWL ;SERPENT .
hed: This word, in the sense of giving careful attention ("take heed," "give heed," etc.), represents several Hebrew and Greek words; chief among them shamar, "to watch"; blepo, "to look," horao, "to see." As opposed to thoughtlessness, disregard of God's words, of the counsels of wisdom, of care for one's ways, it is constantly inculcated as a duty of supreme importance in the moral and spiritual life (Dt 4:9,15,23; 27:9 the King James Version, etc.; Josh 22:5; 23:11; Ps 39:1; Mt 16:6; Mk 4:24; 13:33; Lk 12:15; 1 Cor 3:10; 8:9; 10:12; Col 4:17, etc.).
James Orr
hel (`aqebh): "The iniquity of my heels" (Ps 49:5 the King James Version) is a literal translation, and might be understood to indicate the Psalmist's "false steps," errors or sins, but that meaning is very doubtful here. the Revised Version (British and American) gives "iniquity at my heels." the Revised Version margin gives a still better sense, "When the iniquity of them that would supplant me compasseth me about, even of them that trust in .... riches"--treacherous enemies ever on the watch to trip up a man's heels (compare Hos 12:3). Of Judah it was said, "Thy heels (shall) suffer violence" (Jer 13:22) through being "made bare" (the King James Version), and thus subject to the roughness of the road as she was led captive.
Figurative: (1) Of the partial victory of the evil power over humanity, "Thou shalt bruise (m "lie in wait for") his heel" (Gen 3:15), through constant, insidious suggestion of the satisfaction of the lower desires. Or if we regard this statement as a part of the Protevangelium, the earliest proclamation of Christ's final, and complete victory over sin, the destruction of "the serpent" ("He shall bruise thy head"), then the reference is evidently to Christ's sufferings and death, even to all that He endured in His human nature. (2) Of the stealthy tactics of the tribe of Dan in war, "An adder in the path, that biteth the horse's heels" (Gen 49:17), by which it triumphed over foes of superior strength. (3) Of violence and brutality, "Who .... hath lifted up his heel against me" (Ps 41:9; Jn 13:18), i.e. lifted up his foot to trample upon me (compare Josh 10:24).
M. O. Evans
he'-ga-i, he'-ge (heghay; Gai (Est 2:8,15), and heghe', Hege (Est 2:3)): One of the officers of the Persian king Ahasuerus; a chamberlain or eunuch (keeper of women), into whose custody the "fair young virgins" were delivered from whom the king intended to choose his queen in the place of the discredited Vashti.
heg-e-mon'-i-dez, hej-e-mo-ni'-dez (Hegemonides): The Syrian officer placed in command of the district extending from Ptolemais to the Gerrenians (2 Macc 13:24). It is not easy to see how in the King James Version and even in Swete's revised text the word can be taken as a mere appellative along with strategon, the two being rendered "principal officer": one of the two could certainly be omitted (Swete, 3rd ed., 1905, capitalizes Hegemonides). In the Revised Version (British and American) the word is taken as the name of some person otherwise unknown.
hef'-er (parah, in Nu 19 (see following article) and Hos 4:16; `eghlah, elsewhere in the Old Testament; damalis, in Heb 9:13):For the "heifer of three years old" in the King James Version, the Revised Version margin of Isa 15:5; Jer 48:34, see EGLATH-SHELISHIYAH . A young cow (contrast BULLOCK). The `eghlah figures specifically in religious rites only in the ceremony of Dt 21:1-9 for the cleansing of the land, where an unexpiated murder had been committed. This was not a sacrificial rite--the priests are witnesses only, and the animal was slain by breaking the neck--but sacrificial purity was required for the heifer. Indeed, it is commonly supposed that the rite as it now stands is a rededication of one that formerly had been sacrificial. In the sacrifices proper the heifer could be used for a peace offering (Lev 3:1), but was forbidden for the burnt (Lev 1:3) or sin (Lev 4:3,14) offerings. Hence, the sacrifice of 1 Sam 16:2 was a peace offering. In Gen 15:9 the ceremony of the ratification of the covenant by God makes use of a heifer and a she-goat, but the reason for the use of the females is altogether obscure. Compare following article.
Figuratively: The heifer appears as representing sleekness combined with helplessness in Jer 46:20 (compare the comparison of the soldiers to `stalled calves' in the next verse). In Jer 50:11; Hos 10:11, the heifer is pictured as engaged in threshing. This was particularly light work, coupled with unusually abundant food (Dt 25:4), so that the threshing heifer served especially well for a picture of contentment. ("Wanton" in Jer 50:11, however, is an unfortunate translation in the Revised Version (British and American).) Hosea, in contrast, predicts that the "heifers" shall be set to the hard work of plowing and breaking the sods. In Jdg 14:18, Samson uses "heifer" in his riddle to refer to his wife. This, however, was not meant to convey the impression of licentiousness that it gives the modern reader.
Burton Scott Easton
In Nu 19 a rite is described in which the ashes of a "red heifer" and of certain objects are mixed with running water to obtain the so-called "water for impurity." (Such is the correct translation of the American Standard Revised Version in Nu 19:9,13,10,21; 31:23. In these passages, the King James Version and the English Revised Version, through a misunderstanding of a rather difficult Hebrew term, have "water of separation"; Septuagint and the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) have, "water of sprinkling." the English Revised Version margin, "water of impurity," is right, but ambiguous.) This water was employed in the removal of the uncleanness of a person or thing that had been in contact with a dead body, and also in removing ritual defilement from booty taken in war.
1. Origin and Significance of the Rite:
The general origin of the rite is clear enough, as is the fact that this origin lies back of the official sacrificial system of Israel. For the removal of impurity, ritual as well as physical, water, preferably running water (Nu 19:17; compare Lev 14:5 ff; 15:13), is the natural means, and is employed universally. But where the impurity was unusually great, mere water was not felt to be adequate, and various substances were mixed with it in order to increase its efficacy. So (among other things) blood is used in Lev 14:6,7, and dust in Nu 5:17 (see WATER OF BITTERNESS ). The use, however, of ashes in Nu 19:17 is unique in the Old Testament, although parallels from elsewhere can be adduced. So e.g. in Ovid Fasti, iv.639-40, 725, 733, in the last of these references, "The blood of a horse shall be a purification, and the ashes of calves," is remarkably close to the Old Testament. The ashes were obtained by burning the heifer completely, "her skin, and her flesh, and her blood, with her dung" (the contents of the entrails) (Nu 19:5; compare Ex 29:14). Here only in the Old Testament is blood burned for a ceremonial purpose, and here only is burning a pewliminary; elsewhere it is either a chief act or serves to consume the remnants of a finished sacrifice--Lev 4:12 and Nu 19:3 are altogether different.
The heifer is a female. For the regular sin offering for the congregation, only the male was permitted (Lev 4:14), but the female was used in the purificatory ceremony of Dt 21:3 (a rite that has several points of similarity to that of Nu 19). An individual sin offering by one of the common people, however, required a female (Lev 4:28), but probably only in order to give greater prominence to the more solemn sacrifices for which the male was reserved. A female is required again in the cases enumerated in Lev 5:1-6, most of which are ritual defilements needing purification; a female was required at the purification of a leper (in addition to two males, Lev 14:10), and a female, with one male, was offered when a Nazirite terminated his vows (Nu 6:14). Some connection between purification and the sacrifice of a female may be established by this list, for even in the case of the Nazirite the idea may be removal of the state of consecration. But the reason for such a connection is anything but obvious, and the various explanations that have been offered are hardly more than guesses. The most likely is that purificatory rites originated in a very primitive stage when the female was thought to be the more sacred animal on account of its greater usefulness. Of the other requirements for the heifer she must be "red," i.e. reddish brown (Nu 19:2). Likeness in color to blood is at first sight the most natural explanation, but likeness in color to ripe grain is almost equally plausible. It may be noted that certain Egyptian sacrifices also required red cattle as victims (Plutarch, De Isid. 31). The heifer is to be "without spot" ("faultless"), "wherein is no blemish," the ordinary requirement for sacrifices. (The Jewish exegetes misread this "perfectly red, wherein is no blemish," with extraordinary results; see below.) But an advance on sacrificial requirements is that she shall be one "upon which never came yoke." This requirement is found elsewhere only in Dt 21:3 and in 1 Sam 6:7 (that the animals in this last case were finally sacrificed is, however, not in point). But in other religions this requirement was very common (compare Iliad x.293; Vergil, Georg. iv.550-51; Ovid, Fasti iv.336).
While the heifer was being burned, "cedar-wood, and hyssop, and scarlet" (i.e. scarlet wool or thread) were cast into the flames. The same combination of objects (although differently employed) is found at the cleansing of a leper (Lev 14:4), but their meaning is entirely unknown. The explanations offered are almost countless. It is quite clear that hyssop was especially prized in purifications (Ps 51:7), but the use of hyssop as a sprinkler and the use of ashes of hyssop may be quite unrelated. Hyssop and cedar were supposed to have medicinal properties (see CEDAR ;HYSSOP ). Or the point may be the use of aromatic woods. For a mixture of cedar and other substances in water as a purificatory medium compare Fossey, Magie Assyrienne, 285. The scarlet wool offers still greater difficulties, apart from the color, but it may be noted that scarlet wool plays a part in some of the Babylonian conjurations (Assyrian Bibl., XII, 31). But, obviously, none of this leads very far and it may all be in the wrong direction. All that can be said definitely is that Lev 14:4 and Nu 19:6 show that the combination of objects was deemed to have a high purificatory value.
3. Application and Sacredness of the Ashes:
The ashes, when obtained, were used in removing the greatest of impurities. Consequently, they themselves were deemed to have an extraordinarily "consecrated" character, and they were not to be handled carelessly. Their consecration extended to the rite by which they were produced, so that every person engaged in it was rendered unclean (Nu 19:7,8,10), an excellent example of how in primitive religious thought the ideas of "holiness" and "uncleanness" blend. It was necessary to perform the whole ceremony "without the camp" (Nu 19:3), and the ashes, when prepared, were also kept without the camp (Nu 19:9), probably in order to guard against their touch defiling anyone (as well as to keep them from being defiled). When used they were mixed with running water, and the mixture was sprinkled with hyssop on the person or object to be cleansed (Nu 19:17-19). The same water was used to purify booty (Nu 31:23), and it may also be meant by the "water of expiation" in Nu 8:7.
4. Of Non-Priestly and Non-Israelitish Origin:
In addition to the similarities already pointed out between Nu 19 and Dt 21:1-9, the rites resemble each other also in the fact that, in both, laymen are the chief functionaries and that the priests have little to do (in Dt 21:1-9 they are mere passive witnesses). This suggests a non-priestly origin. The title "sin-offering" in Nu 19:9,17 (unless used in a unique sense) points to an original sacrificial meaning, although in Nu 19 the heifer is carefully kept away from the altar. Again, the correspondences with rites in other religions indicate a non-Israelitish origin. Such a ceremony may well have passed among the Israelites and have become prized by them. It contained nothing objectionable and seemed to have much of deep worth, and a few slight additions--chiefly the sprinkling (Nu 19:4; compare Lev 4:6,17)--made it fit for adoption into the highest system. Some older features may have been eliminated also, but as to this, of course, there is no information. But, in any case, the ceremony is formed of separate rites that are exceedingly old and that are found in a great diversity of religions so that any elaborate symbolic interpretation of the details would seem to be without justification. The same result can be reached by comparing the countless symbolic interpretations that have been attempted in the past, for they differ hopelessly. As a matter of fact, the immense advance that has been gained in the understanding of the meaning of the Old Testament rites through the comparative study of religions has shown the futility of much that has been written on symbolism. That a Certain rite is widely practiced may merely mean that it rests on a true instinct. To be sure, the symbolism of the future will be written on broader lines and will be less pretentious in its claims, but for these very reasons it will rest on a more solid basis. At present, however, the chief task is the collection of material and its correct historical interpretation.
5. Obscurity of Later History:
The later history of the rite is altogether obscure. As no provision was made in Nu 19 for sending the ashes to different points, the purification could have been practiced only by those living near the sanctuary. Rabbinical casuistry still further complicated. matters by providing that two black or white hairs from the same follicle would disqualify the heifer (see above), and that one on whom even a cloth had been laid could not be used. In consequence, it became virtually or altogether impossible to secure a proper animal, and the Mishnic statement that only nine had ever been found (Parah, iii.5) probably means that the rite had been obsolete long before New Testament times. Still, the existence of the tractate, Parah, and the mention in Heb 9:13 show that the provisions were well remembered.
See also SACRIFICE .
LITERATURE.
Baentsch (1903), Holzinger (1903), and (especially) Grey (1903) on Nu; Kennedy in HDB; Edersheim, Temple and Ministry, chapter xviii (rabbinic traditions. Edersheim gives the best of the "typological" explanations).
Burton Scott Easton
hit, The English terms represent a large number of Hebrew words (gobhah, marom, qomah, rum, etc.). A chief thing to notice is that in the Revised Version (British and American) "height" and "heights" are frequently substituted for other words in the King James Version, as "coast" (Josh 12:23), "region" (1 Ki 4:11), "borders" (Josh 11:2), "countries" (Josh 17:11), "strength" (Ps 95:4), "high places" (Isa 41:18; Jer 3:2,21; 7:29; 12:12; 14:6), "high palaces" (Ps 78:69). On the other hand, for "height" in the King James Version, the Revised Version (British and American) has "stature" (Ezek 31:5,10), "raised basement" (Ezek 41:8), etc. In the New Testament we have hupsoma, prop. of space (Rom 8:39), and hupsos of measure (Eph 3:18; Rev 21:16).
James Orr
ar:
In the New Testament "heir" is the invariable translation of kleronomos (15 times), the technical equivalent in Greek, and of the compound sunkleronomos, "co-heir," in Rom 8:17; Eph 3:6; Heb 11:9; 1 Pet 3:7 (in Gal 4:30; Heb 1:14, contrast the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)). In the Old Testament "heir" and "to be heir" both represent some form of the common verb yarash, "possess," and the particular rendition of the verb as "to be heir" is given only by the context (compare e.g. the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) in Jer 49:2; Mic 1:15). Exactly the same is true of the words translated "inherit," "inheritance," which in by far the great majority of cases would have been represented better by "possess," "possession" (see INHERITANCE andOHL on ...). Consequently, when God is said, for instance, to have given Palestine to Israel as an `inheritance' (Lev 20:24, etc.), nothing more need be meant than `given as a possession.' The Septuagint, however, for the sake of variety in its rendition of Hebrew words, used kleronomeo in many such cases (especially Gen 15:7,8; 22:17), and thereby fixed on `heir' the sense of `recipient of a gift from God.' And so the word passed in this sense into New Testament Greek--Rom 4:13,14; Gal 3:29; Tit 3:7; Heb 6:17; 11:7; Jas 2:5; compare Eph 3:6; Heb 11:9; 1 Pet 3:7. On the other hand, the literal meaning of the word is found in Mk 12:7 (and parallels and Gal 4:1--in the latter case being suggested by the transferred meaning in 3:29--while in Rom 8:17; Gal 4:7, the literal and transferred meanings are blended. This blending has produced the phrase "heirs of God," which, literally, is meaningless and which doubtless was formed without much deliberation, although it is perfectly clear. A similar blending has applied "heir" to Christ in Heb 1:2 (compare Rom 8:17 and perhaps Mk 12:7) as the recipient of all things in their totality. But apart from these "blended" passages, it would be a mistake to think that sonship is always consciously thought of where "heir" is mentioned, and hence, too much theological implication should not be assigned the latter word.
The heirs of property in the Old Testament were normally the sons and, chief among these, the firstborn.
(1) Dt 21:15-17 provides that the firstborn shall inherit a "double portion," whence it would appear that all the other sons shared equally. (It should be noted that in this law the firstborn is the eldest son of the father, not of the mother as in Ex 13:2.) Uncertain, however, is what Dt 21:15-17 means by "wife," and the practice must have varied. In Gen 21:10 the son of the handmaid was not to be heir with Isaac, but in Gen 30:1-13 the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah are reckoned as legitimate children of Jacob. See MARRIAGE . Nor is it clear that Dt 21:15-17 forbids setting aside the eldest son because of his own sin--compare the case of Reuben (Gen 49:3,1; 1 Ch 5:1), although the son of a regular wife (Gen 29:32). The very existence of Dt 21:15-17, moreover, shows that in spite of the absence of formal wills, a man could control to some extent the disposition of his property after his death and that the right of the firstborn could be set aside by the father (1 Ch 26:10). That the royal dignity went by primogeniture is asserted only (in a particular case) in 2 Ch 21:3, and both David (1 Ki 1:11-13) and Rehoboam (2 Ch 11:21-23) chose younger sons as their successors. A single payment in the father's lifetime could be given in lieu of heritage (Gen 25:6; Lk 15:12), and it was possible for two brothers to make a bargain as to the disposition of the property after the father's death (Gen 25:31-34).
(2) When there were sons alive, the daughters had no right of inheritance, and married daughters had no such right in any case. (Job 42:15 describes an altogether exceptional procedure.) Probably unmarried daughters passed under the charge of the firstborn, as the new head of the family, and he took the responsibility of finding them husbands. Nu 27:1-11; 36:1-12 treat of the case where there were no sons--the daughters inherited the estate, but they could marry only within the tribe, lest the tribal possessions be confused. This right of the daughters, however, is definitely stated to be a new thing, and in earlier times the property probably passed to the nearest male relatives, to whom it went in later times if there were no daughters. In extreme cases, where no other heirs could be found, the property went to the slaves (Gen 15:3; Prov 30:23, noting that the meaning of the latter verse is uncertain), but this could have happened only at the rarest intervals. A curious instance is that of 1 Ch 2:34,35, where property is preserved in the family by marrying the daughter to an Egyptian slave belonging to the father; perhaps some adoption-idea underlies this.
(3) The wife had no claim on the inheritance, though the disposition made of her dowry is not explained, and it may have been returned to her. If she was childless she resorted to the Levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-10). If this was impracticable or was without issue she returned to her own family and might marry another husband (Gen 38:11; Lev 22:13; Ruth 1:8). The inferior wives (concubines) were part of the estate and went to the heir; indeed, possession of the father's concubines was proof of possession of his dignities (2 Sam 16:21,22; 1 Ki 2:13-25). At least, such was the custom in the time of David and Solomon, but at a later period nothing is heard of the practice.
(4) The disposition of land is a very obscure question. Nu 36:4 states explicitly that each heir had a share, but the continual splittin up of an estate through successive generations would have produced an impossible state of affairs. Possibly the land went to the eldest born as part of his portion, possibly in some cases it was held in common by the members of the family, possibly some member bought the shares of the others, possibly the practice differed at different times. But our ignorance of the facts is complete.
NOTE.--The dates assigned by different scholars to the passages cited have an important bearing on the discussion.
Burton Scott Easton
he'-la (chel'ah): A wife of Ashhur, father of Tekoa (1 Ch 4:5,7).
he'-lam (chelam, 2 Sam 10:16 f; in 16:17 with the he of locale; Septuagint Hailam): A place near which David is said to have defeated the Aramean world under Hadarezer (2 Sam 10:16 ff). Its site is unknown. Cornill and others introduce it into the text of Ezek 47:16 from the Septuagint Heliam). This would place it between the territories of Damascus and Hamath, which is not unreasonable. Some scholars identify it with Aleppo, which seems too far north.
hel'-ba (chelbah): A place in the territory assigned to Asher (Jdg 1:31). It may be identical with Mahalliba of Sennacherib's prism inscription. The site, however, has not been recovered.
hel'-bon (chelbon; Chelbon, Chebron): A district from which Tyre received supplies of wine through the Damascus market (Ezek 27:18); universally admitted to be the modern Halbun, a village at the head of a fruitful valley of the same name among the chalk slopes on the eastern side of Anti-Lebanon, 13 miles North-Northwest of Damascus, where traces of ancient vineyard terracing still exist. Records contemporary with Ezek mention mat helbunim or the land of Helbon, whence Nebuchadnezzar received wine for sacrificial purposes (Belinno Cylinder, I, 23), while karan hulbunu, or Helbonian wine, is named in Western Asiatic Inscriptions, II, 44. Strabo (xv.735) also tells that the kings of Persia esteemed it highly. The district is still famous for its grapes--the best in the country--but these are mostly made into raisins, since the population is now Moslem. Helbon must not be confounded with Chalybon (Ptol. v.15, 17), the Greek-Roman province of Haleb or Aleppo.
W. M. Christie
hel-ki'-a.
See HELKIAS .
hel'-da-i (chelday):
(1) A captain of the temple-service, appointed for the 12th month (1 Ch 27:15). Same as Heled (cheledh) in parallel list (compare 1 Ch 11:30), and is probably also to be identified with Heleb, son of Baanah the Metophathite, one of David's heroic leaders (2 Sam 23:29).
(2) One of a company of Jews who brought gifts of gold and silver from Babylon to assist the exiles under Zerubbabel (Zec 6:10).
he'-leb chelebh, 2 Sam 23:29).
See HELDAI .
he'-led (cheledh, 1 Ch 11:30).
See HELDAI .
he'-lek chelekh): Son of Gilead the Manassite (Nu 26:30; Josh 17:2). Patronymic, Helekites (Nu 26:30).
he'-lem:
(1) helem; Septuagint Codex Vaticanus, Balaam, omitting "son," Codex Alexandrinus, huios Elam, "son of Elam" (1 Ch 7:35). A great-grandson of Asher, called Hotham in 1 Ch 7:32. The form "Elam" appears as the name of a Levite in 1 Esdras 8:33.
(2) chelem, "strength," regarded by Septuagint as a common noun (Zec 6:14). One of the ambassadors from the Jews of the exile to Jerusalem; probably the person called Heldai in Zec 6:10 is meant.
he'-lef (cheleph): A place on the southern border of Naphtali (Josh 19:33); unidentified.
he'-lez (chelets "vigor"; Septuagint Selles, Chelles):
(1) 2 Sam 23:26; 1 Ch 11:27; 27:10. One of David's mighty men; according to 1 Ch 27:10, he belonged to the sons of Ephraim and was at the head of the 7th course in David's organization of the kingdom.
(2) Septuagint Chelles, 1 Ch 2:39. A man of Judah of the clan of the Jerahmeelites.
he'-li (Helei for `eli):
(1) The father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, in Luke's account of the genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3:23).
(2) An ancestor of Ezra (2 Esdras 1:2).
he-li-o-do'-rus (Heliodoros): Treasurer of the Syrian king Seleucus IV, Philopator (187-175 BC), the immediate predecessor of Antiochus Epiphanes who carried out to its utmost extremity the Hellenizing policy begun by Seleucus and the "sons of Tobias." Greatly in want of money to pay the tribute due to the Romans as one of the results of the victory of Scipio over Antiochus the Great at Magnesia (190 BC), Seleucus learned from Apollonius, governor of Coele-Syria (Pal) and Phoenicia, of the wealth which was reported to be stored up in the Temple at Jerusalem and commissioned Heliodorus. (2 Macc 3) to plunder the temple and to bring its contents to him. On the wealth collected in the Temple at this time, Josephus (Ant., IV, vii, 2) may be consulted. The Temple seems to have served the purposes of a bank in which the private deposits of widows and orphans were kept for greater security, and in 2 Macc 3:15-21 is narrated the panic at Jerusalem which took place when Heliodorus came with an armed guard to seize the contents of the Temple (see Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,III , 287). In spite of the protest of Onias, the high priest, Heliodorus. was proceeding to carry out his commission when, "through the Lord of Spirits and the Prince of all power," a great apparition appeared which caused him to fall down "compassed with great darkness" and speechless. When "quite at the last gasp" he was by the intercession of Onias restored to life and strength and "testified to all men the works of the great God which he had beheld with his eyes." The narrative given in 2 Macc 3 is not mentioned by any other historian, though 4 Macc refers to the plundering of the Temple and assigns the deed to Apollonius. Raffaelle used the incident in depicting, on the walls of the Vatican, the triumph of Pope Julius II over the enemies of the Pontificate.
J. Hutchison
he-li-op'-o-lis.
See ON .
hel'-ka-i, hel'-ki, hel-ka'-i (chelqay, perhaps an abbreviation for Helkiah, "Yah is my portion." Not in the Septuagint's Codex Vaticanus; Codex L: Chelkias (Neh 12:15)): The head of a priestly house in the days of Joiakim.
hel'-kath (chelqath (Josh 19:25); chelqath (Josh 21:31); by a scribal error chuqoq (1 Ch 6:75)): A town or district on the border of Asher, assigned to the Levites; unidentified.
hel'-kath-haz'-u-rim, -ha-zu'-rim (chelqath ha-tsurim; Meris ton epiboulon): The name as it stands means "field of the sword edges," and is applied to the scene of the conflict in which twelve champions each from the army of Joab and that of Abner perished together, each slaying his fellow (2 Sam 2:16). Some, following Septuagint, would read chelqath ha-tsodhim, "field of the crafty," i.e. "of the ambush." Thenius suggested chelqath ha-tsarim, "field of the adversaries" (see also H. P. Smith, ICC, "Samuel," 271). Probably, however, the text as it stands is correct.
W. Ewing
hel-ki'-as (chilqiyah; Chelkias; the King James Version Chelcias):
(1) Father of Susanna (Susanna verses 2,29,63). According to tradition he was brother of Jeremiah, and he is identified with the priest who found the Book of the Law in the time of Josiah (2 Ki 22:8).
(2) Ancestor of Baruch (Baruch 1:1).
(3) Father of Joiakim the high priest (Baruch 1:7). The name represents HILKIAH (which see).
hel (see SHEOL ;HADES ;GEHENNA ):
1. The Word in the King James Version:
The English word, from a Teutonic root meaning "to hide" or "cover," had originally the significance of the world of the dead generally, and in this sense is used by Chaucer, Spenser, etc., and in the Creed ("He descended into hell"); compare the English Revised Version Preface. Now the word has come to mean almost exclusively the place of punishment of the lost or finally impenitent; the place of torment of the wicked. In the King James Version of the Scriptures, it is the rendering adopted in many places in the Old Testament for the Hebrew word she'ol (in 31 out of 65 occurrences of that word it is so translated), and in all places, save one (1 Cor 15:55) in the New Testament, for the Greek word Hades (this word occurs 11 times; in 10 of these it is translated "hell"; 1 Cor 15:55 reads "grave," with "hell" in the margin). In these cases the word has its older general meaning, though in Lk 16:23 (parable of Rich Man and Lazarus) it is specially connected with a place of "torment," in contrast with the "Abraham's bosom" to which Lazarus is taken (16:22).
2. The Word in the Revised Version:
In the above cases the Revised Version (British and American) has introduced changes, replacing "hell" by "Sheol" in the passages in the Old Testament (the English Revised Version retains "hell" in Isa 14:9,15; the American Standard Revised Version makes no exception), and by "Hades" in the passages in the New Testament (see under these words).
Besides the above uses, and more in accordance with the modern meaning, the word "hell" is used in the New Testament in the King James Version as the equivalent of Gehenna (12 t; Mt 5:22,29; 10:28, etc.). the Revised Version (British and American) in these cases puts "Gehenna" in the margin. Originally the Valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem, Gehenna became among the Jews the synonym for the place of torment in the future life (the "Gehenna of fire," Mt 5:22, etc.; see GEHENNA ).
In yet one other passage in the New Testament (2 Pet 2:4), "to cast down to hell" is used (the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)) to represent the Greek tartaroo, ("to send into Tartarus"). Here it stands for the place of punishment of the fallen angels: "spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits (or chains) of darkness" (compare Jude 1:6; but also Mt 25:41). Similar ideas are found in certain of the Jewish apocalyptic books (Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, Apocrypha Baruch, with apparent reference to Gen 6:1-4; compare ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ).
On theological aspect, see PUNISHMENT ,EVERLASTING . For literature, see references in above-named arts., and compare article "Hell" by Dr. D. S. Salmond in HDB.
James Orr
hel'-en-iz'-m, hel'-en-ist: Hellenism is the name we give to the manifold achievements of the Greeks in social and political institutions, in the various arts, in science and philosophy, in morals and religion. It is customary to distinguish two main periods, between which stands the striking figure of Alexander the Great, and to apply to the earlier period the adjective "Hellenic," that of "Hellenistic" to the latter. While there is abundant reason for making this distinction, it must not be considered as resting upon fortuitous changes occasioned by foreign influences. The Hellenistic age is rather the sudden unfolding of a flower whose bud was forming and maturing for centuries.
1. The Expansion of the Greek Peoples:
Before the coming of the Hellenic peoples into what we now call Greece, there existed in those lands a flourishing civilization to which we may give the name "Aegean." The explorations of archaeologists during the last few decades have brought it to light in many places on the continent, as well as on the islands of the Aegean and notably in Crete. When the Hellenic peoples came, it was not as a united nation, nor even as homogeneous tribes of a common race; though without doubt predominantly of kindred origin, it was the common possession of an Aryan speech and of similar customs and religion that marked them off from the peoples among whom they settled. When their southward movemerit from Illyria occurred, and by what causes it was brought about, we do not know; but it can hardly have long antedated the continuance of this migration which led to the settlement of the coast districts of Asia Minor and the islands of the Aegean from about the 13th to the 10th centuries BC. In the colonization of these new territories the Hellenic peoples became conscious of their kinship, partly because the several colonies received contingents from various regions of the motherland, partly because they were in common brought into striking contrast to the alien "Barbarians" who spoke other untintelligible languages. As the older communities on the mainland and on the islands began to flourish, they felt the need, arising from various causes, for further colonization. Among these causes we may mention the poverty of the soil in Greece proper, the restricting pressure of the strong tribes of Asia Minor who prevented expansion inland, a growing disaffection with the aristocratic regime in almost all Greek states and with the operation of the law of primogeniture in land tenure, and lastly the combined lure of adventure and the prospect of trade. Thus, it came about that in the 8th and 7th centuries BC, two great movements of colonial expansion set in, one toward the Hellespont and to the shores of the Pontus, or Black Sea, beyond, the other westward toward Southern Italy, Sicily, and beyond as far as Gades in Spain. To the 7th century belongs also the colonization of Naucratis in Egypt and of Cyrene in Libya. Then followed a period of relative inactivity during the 5th century, which was marked by the desperate conflict of the Greeks with Persia in the East and with Carthage in the West, succeeded by even more disastrous conflicts among themselves. With the enforced internal peace imposed by Macedonia came the resumption of colonial and military expansion in a measure before undreamed of. In a few years the empire of Alexander embraced Thrace, Asia Minor, Egypt, and Asia eastward beyond the Indus. The easternmost regions soon fell away, but Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt long continued under Greek rule, until Rome in the 1st century BC made good her claims to sovereignty in those lands.
Throughout this course of development and expansion we speak of the people as Greeks, although it is evident that even such racial homogeneity as they may have had on coming into Greece must have been greatly modified by the absorption of conquered peoples. But the strong individuality of the Hellenic population manifested itself everywhere in its civilization. In the evolution from the Homeric kingship (supported by the nobles in council, from which the commonalty was excluded, or where it was supposed at most to express assent or dissent to proposals laid before it) through oligarchic or aristocratic rule and the usurped authority of the tyrants, to the establishement of democratic government, there is nothing surprising to the man of today. That is because Greek civilization has become typical of all western civilization. In the earlier stages of this process, moreover, there is nothing strikingly at variance with the institutions of the Hebrews, at least so far as concerns the outward forms. But there existed throughout a subtle difference of spirit which made it possible, even inevitable, for the Greeks to attain to democratic institutions, whereas to the Hebrews such a development was impossible, if not unthinkable. It is difficult to define this spirit, but one may say that it was marked from the first by an inclination to permit the free development and expression of individuality subordinated to the common good; by a corresponding recognition of human limitations over against one's fellow-man as over against Deity; by an instinctive dread of excess as inhuman and provoking the just punishment of the gods; and lastly by a sane refusal to take oneself too seriously, displaying itself in a certain good-humored irony even among men who, like Socrates and Epicurus, regarded themselves as charged with a sublime mission, in striking contrast with the Hebrew prophets who voiced the thunders of Sinai, but never by any chance smiled at their own earnestness. Even the Macedonians did not attempt to rule Greece with despotic sway, leaving the states in general in the enjoyment of their liberties; and in the Orient, Alexander and his successors, Roman as well as Greek, secured their power and extended civilization by the foundation and encouragement of Hellenic cities in extraordinary numbers. The city-state, often confederated with other city-states, displaced the organization of tribe or clan, thus substituting a new unit and a new interest for the old; and the centers thus created radiated Hellenic influence and made for order and good government everywhere. But in accordance with the new conditions the state took on a somewhat different form. While the city preserved local autonomy, the state became monarchical; and the oriental deification of the king reinforced by the Hellenic tendency to deify the benefactors of mankind, eventuated in modes of speech and thought which powerfully influenced the Messianic hopes of the Jews.
The life of the Greeks, essentially urban and dominated by political interests fostered in states in which the individual counted for much, was of a type wholly different from the oriental. Although the fiction of consanguinity was cultivated by the Hellenic city-state as by the Semitic tribe, it was more transparent in the former, particularly in the newer communities formed in historical times. There was thus a powerful stimulus to mutual tolerance and concession which, supported as it was by the strong love of personal independence and the cultivation of individuality, led to the development of liberty and the recognition of the rights of man. A healthy social life was the result for those who shared the privileges of citizenship, and also, in hardly less degree, for those resident aliens who received the protection of the state. Women also, though not so free as men, enjoyed, even at Athens where they were most limited, liberties unknown to the Orientals. In the Hellenistic age they attained a position essentially similar to that of modern Europe. There were slaves belonging both to individuals and the state, but their lot was mitigated in general by a steadily growing humanity. The amenities of life were many, and were cultivated no less in the name of religion than of art, literature, and science.
As in every phase of Greek civilization, the development of art and letters was free. Indeed their supreme excellence must be attributed to the happy circumstances which suffered them to grow spontaneously from the life of the people without artificial constraints imposed from within, or overpowering influences coming from without: a fortune which no other great movement in art or letters can boast. Greek art was largely developed in the service of religion; but owing to the circumstance that both grew side by side, springing from the heart of man, their reactions were mutual, art contributing to religion quite as much as it received. The creative genius of the Hellenic people expressed itself with singular directness and simplicity in forms clearly visualized and subject to the conditions of psychologically effective grouping in space or time. Their art is marked by the observance of a just proportion and by a certain natural restraint due to the preponderance of the intellectual element over the purely sensuous. Its most characteristic product is the ideal type in which only enough individuality enters to give to the typical the concreteness of life. What has been said of art in the narrower sense applies equally to artistic letters. The types thus created, whether in sculpture, architecture, music, drama, history, or oratory, though not regarded with superstitious reverence, commended themselves by the sheer force of inherent truth and beauty to succeeding generations, thus steadying the course of development and restraining the exuberant originality and the tendency to individualism. In the Hellenistic age, individualism gradually preponderated where the lessening power of creative genius did not lead to simple imitation.
5. Philosophy of Nature and of Conduct:
The traditional views of the Hellenic peoples touching Nature and conduct, which did not differ widely from those of other peoples in a corresponding stage of culture, maintained themselves down to the 7th century BC with comparatively little change. Along with and following the colonial expansion of Hellenism there came the awakening intellectual curiosity, or rather the shock of surprise necessary to convert attention into question. The mythology of the Greeks had contained a vague theology, without authority indeed, but satisfactory because adequate to express the national thought. Ethics there was none, morality being customary. But the extending horizon of Hellenic thought discovered that customs differed widely in various lands; indeed, it is altogether likely that the collection of strange and shocking customs which filled the quivers of the militant Sophists in the 5th century had its inception in the 6th and possibly the 7th century At any rate it furnished the fiery darts of the adversary until ethics was founded in reason by the quest of Socrates for the universal, not in conduct, but in judgment. As ethics arose out of the irreconcilable contradictions of conduct, so natural philosophy sprung from the contradictions of mythical theology and in opposition to it. There were in fact two strata of conceptions touching supernatural beings; one, growing out of a primitive animism, regarded their operations essentially from the point of view of magic, which refuses to be surprised at any result, be it never so ill-proportioned to the means employed, so long as the mysterious word was spoken or the requisite act performed; the other, sprung from a worship of Nature in her most striking phenomena, recognized an order, akin to the moral order, in her operations. When natural philosophy arose in the 6th century, it instinctively at first, then consciously, divested Nature of personality by stripping off the disguise of myth and substituting a plain and reasoned tale founded on mechanical principles. This is the spirit which pervades pre-Socratic science and philosophy. The quest of Socrates for universally valid judgments on conduct directed thought to the laws of mind, which are teleological, in contradistinction to the laws of matter, which are mechanical; and thus in effect dethroned Nature, regarded as material, by giving primacy to mind. Henceforth, Greek philosophy was destined, with relatively few and unimportant exceptions, to devote itself to the study of human conduct and to be essentially idealistic, even where the foundation, as with the Stoics, was ostensibly materialistic. More and more it became true of the Greek philosophers that they sought God, "if haply they might feel after him and find him," conscious of the essential unity of the Divine and the human, and defining philosophy as the endeavor to assimilate the soul to God.
6. Hellenic and Hellenistic Religion:
The Homeric poems present a picture of Greek life as seen by a highly cultivated aristocratic society having no sympathy with the commonalty. Hence, we are not to regard Homeric religion as the religion of the Hellenic peoples in the Homeric age. Our first clear view of the Hellenic commoner is presented by Hesiod in the 8th century. Here we find, alongside of the worship of the Olympians, evidences of chthonian cults and abundant hints of human needs not satisfied by the well-regulated religion of the several city-states. The conventionalized monarchy of Zeus ruling over his fellow-Olympians is known to be a fiction of the poets, having just as much--no more--foundation, in fact, as the mythical overlordship of Agamemnon over the assembled princes of the Achaens; while it caught the imagination of the Greeks and dominated their literature, each city-state possessed its own shrines sacred to its own gods, who might or might not be called by the names of Olympians. Yet the great shrines which attracted Greeks from every state, such as those of Zeus at Dodona (chiefly in the period before the 7th century) and Olympia, of Apollo at Delos and Delphi, and of Hera at Argos, were the favored abodes of Olympians. Only one other should be mentioned: that of Demeter at Eleusis. Her worship was of a different character, and the great repute of her shrine dates from the 5th century. If the Zeus of Olympia was predominantly the benign god of the sky, to whom men came in joyous mood to delight him with pomp and festive gatherings, performing feats of manly prowess in the Olympic games, the Zeus of Dodona, and the Delphian Apollo, as oracular deities, were visited in times of doubt and distress. The 7th and 6th centuries mark the advent--or the coming into prominence--of deities whose appeal was to the deepest human emotions, of ecstatic enthusiasm, of fear, and of hope. Among them we must mention Dionysus, the god of teeming Nature (see DIONYSUS ), and Orpheus. With their advent comes an awakening of the individual soul, whose aspiration to commune with Deity found little satisfaction in the general worship of the states. Private organizations and quasi-monastic orders, like those of the Orphics and Pythagoreans, arose and won countless adherents. Their deities found admission into older shrines, chiefly those of chthonian divinities, like that of Demeter at Eleusis, and wrought a change in the spirit and to a certain extent in the ritual of the "mysteries" practiced there. It was in these "mysteries" that the Christian Fathers, according to the mood or the need, polemic or apologetic, of the moment, saw now the propaedeutic type, now the diabolically instituted counterfeit, of the sacraments and ordinances of the church. The spirit and even the details of the observances of the "mysteries" are difficult to determine; but one must beware of accepting the hostile judgments of Christian writers who were in fact retorting upon the Greeks criticisms leveled at the church: both were blinded by partisanship and so misread the symbols.
If we thus find a true praeparatio evangelica in the Hellenistic developments of earlier Hellenic religion, there are parallel developments in the other religions which were adopted in the Hellenistic age. The older national religions of Persia and Egypt underwent a similar change, giving rise respectively to the worship of Mithra and of Isis, both destined, along with the chthonian mysteries of the Greeks, to be dangerous rivals for the conquest of the world of Christianity, itself a younger son in this prolific family of new religions. Space is wanting here for a consideration of these religious movements, the family resemblance of which with Christianity is becoming every day more apparent; but so much at least should be said, that while every candid student must admit the superiority of Christianity in moral content and adaptation to the religious nature of man, the difference in these respects was not at first sight so obvious that the successful rival might at the beginning of the contest have been confidently predicted.
See GREECE ,RELIGION IN ANCIENT .
As with other manifestations of the Hellenic spirit, so, too, in matters of religion, it was the free development of living institutions that most strikingly distinguishes the Greeks from the Hebrews. They had priests, but were never ruled by them; they possessed a literature regarded with veneration, and in certain shrines treasured sacred writings containing directions for the practice and ritual of the cults, but they were neither intended nor suffered to fix for all time the interpretation of the symbols. In the 5th and 4th centuries the leaders of Greek thought rebuked the activity of certain priests, and it was not before the period of Roman dominion that priests succeeded even in a small measure in usurping power, and sacred writings began to exercise an authority remotely comparable to that recognized among the Jews.
A most interesting question is that concerning the extent to which Greek civilization and thought had penetrated and influenced Judaism. During three centuries before the advent of Jesus, Hellenism had been a power in Syria and Judea. The earliest writings of the Hebrews showing this influence are Dan and the Old Testament Apocrypha. Several books of the Apocrypha were originally written in Greek, and show strong influence of Greek thought. The Septuagint, made for the Jews of the Dispersion, early won its way to authority even in Palestine, where Aramaic had displaced Hebrew, which thus became a dead language known only to a few. New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are almost without exception taken from the Septuagint. Thus the sacred literature of the Jews was for practical purposes Greek. Though Jesus spoke Aramaic, He unquestionably knew some Greek. Yet there is no clear evidence of specifically Greek influence on this thought, the presuppositions of which are Jewish or generally those of the Hellenistic age. All the writings of the New Testament were originally composed in Greek, though their authors differed widely in the degree of proficiency in the use of the language and in acquaintance with Hellenic thought. Their debt to these sources can be profitably considered only in connection with the individual writers; but one who is acquainted with the Hebrew and Greek literature instinctively feels in reading the New Testament that the national character of the Jews, as reflected in the Old Testament, has all but vanished, remaining only as a subtle tone of moral earnestness and as an imaginative coloring, except in the simple story of the Synoptic Gospels. But for the bitterness aroused by the destruction of Jerusalem, it is probable that the Jews would have yielded completely to Hellenic influences.
William Arthur Heidel
helm.
See SHIPS AND BOATS .
hel'-met.
hel'-on (chelon, "valorous"; the Septuagint's Codex Vaticanus, Chailon): The father of Eliab, the prince of the tribe of Zebulun (Nu 1:9; 2:7; 7:24,29; 10:16).
With the sense of that which brings aid, support, or deliverance, "help" (noun and vb.) represents a large variety of words in Hebrew and Greek (noun 7, verb 16). A principal Hebrew word is `azar, "to help," with the corresponding nouns `ezer, `ezrah; a chief Greek word is boetheo (Mt 15:25; Mk 9:22,24, etc.). True help is to be sought for in Yahweh, in whom, in the Old Testament, the believer is constantly exhorted to trust, with the renouncing of all other confidences (Ps 20:2; 33:20; 42:5; 46:1; 115:9,10,11; 121:2; Isa 41:10,13,14, etc.). In Rom 8:26 it is said, "the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity," the verb here (sunantilambanetai) having the striking meaning of to "take hold along with one." In the story of Eden, Eve is spoken of as "a help meet" for Adam (Gen 2:18,20). The idea in "meet" is not so much "suitability," though that is implied, as likeness, correspondence in nature (Vulgate, similem sibi). One like himself, as taken from him, the woman would be an aid and companion to the man in his tasks.
James Orr
help'-met.
See HELP .
(antilempseis, 1 Cor 12:28): In classical Greek the word antilempsis means "remuneration," the hold one has on something, then perception, apprehension. But in Biblical Greek it has an altruistic meaning. Thus, it is used in the Septuagint, both in the Old Testament Scriptures and in the Apocrypha (Ps 22:19; 89:19; 1 Esdras 8:27; 2 Macc 15:7). Thus, we obtain a clue to its meaning in our text, where it has been usually understood as referring to the deacons, the following word kuberneseis, translated "governments," being explained as referring to the presbyters.
Henry E. Dosker
(boetheiai, Acts 27:17).
See SHIPS AND BOATS ,III , 2.
helv (`ets "wood," "tree"): The handle or wooden part of an ax. "The head (margin "iron") slippeth from the helve" (margin "tree," Dt 19:5). The marginal reading suggests that "the ax is supposed to glance off the tree it is working on."
(kraspedon): The classic instance of the use of "hem" in the New Testament is Mt 9:20 the King James Version (compare Mt 14:36), where the woman "touched the hem of his (Christ's) garment." The reference is to the fringe or tassel with its traditional blue thread which the faithful Israelite was directed to wear on the corners of the outer garment (Nu 15:37 ff; Dt 22:12). Great importance came to be attached to it, the ostentatious Pharisees making it very broad or large (Mt 23:5). Here the woman clearly thought there might be peculiar virtue in touching the tassel or fringe of Jesus' garment. Elsewhere the word is rendered BORDER (which see).
George B. Eager
he'-mam (Gen 36:22 the King James Version and the English Revised Version).
he'-man (heman, "faithful"): The name of two men in the Old Testament.
(1) A musician and seer, a Levite, son of Joel and grandson of the prophet Samuel; of the family of the Kohathites (1 Ch 6:33), appointed by David as one of the leaders of the temple-singing (1 Ch 15:17; 2 Ch 5:12). He had 14 sons (and 3 daughters) who assisted their father in the chorus. Heman seems also to have been a man of spiritual power; is called "the king's seer in matters of God" (1 Ch 25:5; 2 Ch 35:15).
(2) One of the noted wise men prior to, or about, the time of Solomon. He was one of the three sons of Mahol (1 Ki 4:31 (Hebrew 5:11)); also called a son of Zerah (1 Ch 2:6).
Ps 88 is inscribed to Heman the Ezrahite, who is probably to be identified with the second son of Zerah.
Edward Babgy Pollard
he'-math.
hem'-dan (chemdan, "pleasant"): A descendant of Seir, the Horite (Gen 36:26). Wrongly translated "Amram" by the King James Version in 1 Ch 1:41 (the Revised Version (British and American) "Hamran"), where the transcribers made an error in one vowel and one consonant, writing (chamran), instead of (chemdan).
hem'-lock.
See GALL .
hen (chen, "favor"). In Zec 6:14, English Versions of the Bible reads, "And the crowns shall be to Helem .... and to Hen the son of Zephaniah." But as this person is called Josiah in Zec 6:10, the Revised Version, margin "and for the kindness of the son of Zephaniah" is probably right, but the text is uncertain.
See JOSIAH .
(ornis): Mentioned in the accounts of the different disciples in describing the work of Jesus (Mt 23:37; Lk 13:34).
he'-na (hena`; Ana): Named in 2 Ki 19:13, as one of the cities destroyed by Sennacherib along with Sepharvaim. It does not appear in a similar connection in 17:24. The text is probably corrupt. No reasonable identification has been proposed. Cheyne (Encyclopaedia Biblica, under the word) says of the phrase "Hena and Ivah" that "underlying this is a witty editorial suggestion that the existence of cities called h-n-` and `-w-h respectively has passed out of mind (compare Ps 9:6 (7)), for hena` we`iwwah, clearly means `he has driven away and overturned' (so Targum, Symmachus)." He would drop out h-n-`. Hommel (Expositors Times, IX, 330) thinks that here we have divine names; Hena standing for the Arabic star-name al-han`a, and Ivvah for al-`awwa'u.
See IVAH .
W. Ewing
hen'-a-dad (chenadhadh, "favor of Hadad"; Septuagint Henaad; Henadad; Henadab; Henalab (Ezr 3:9; Neh 3:18,24; 10:9)): One of the heads of the Levites in the post-exilic community.
hen'-a (Song 1:14; 4:13): An aromatic plant.
he'-nok (chanokh; Henoch; in 1 Ch 1:3 the King James Version the Revised Version (British and American), "Enoch"; in Gen 25:4, the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) "Hanoch"; 1 Ch 1:33, the King James Version "Henoch," the Revised Version (British and American) "Hanoch"): The name of a Midianite, a descendant of Abram.
(chepher):
(1) Septuagint Hopher (Josh 12:17), a Canaanitish town mentioned between Tappuah and Aphek, unidentified.
(2) In 1 Ki 4:10 a district connected with Socoh, and placed by Solomon under the direction of Benhesed of Arubboth, unidentified.
he'-fer, he'-fer-its (chepher, chephri):
(1) Septuagint Hopher (Nu 26:32 f; 27:1; Josh 17:2 f), the head of a family or clan of the tribe of Manasseh. The clan is called the Hepherites in Nu 26:32.
(2) Septuagint Hephal (1 Ch 4:6), a man of Judah.
(3) Septuagint Hopher (1 Ch 11:36), one of David's heroes.
hef'-zi-ba (chephtsi-bhah, "my delight is in her"):
(1) Septuagint Hopseiba, Hapseiba, Hophsiba, the mother of Manasseh (2 Ki 21:1).
(2) The new name of Zion (Isa 62:4); Septuagint translates Thelema emon, "my delight."
her'-a-klez (Herakles).
See HERCULES .
her'-ald: The word occurs once (Dan 3:4) as the translation of the Aramaic word karoz (compare kerux): "Then the herald cried aloud."
See also GAMES .
hurb, urb:
(1) yaraq, "green thing" (Ex 10:15; Isa 15:6); a garden of herbs" (Dt 11:10; 1 Ki 21:2); "(a dinner, the margin portion of) herbs" (Prov 15:17).
(2) `esebh; compare Arabic `ushb, "herbage," "grass," etc.; "herbs yielding seed" (Gen 1:11); "herbage" for food (Gen 1:30; Jer 14:6); translated "grass" (Dt 11:15; Am 7:2); "herbs" (Prov 27:25, etc.).
(3) deshe', translated "herb" (2 Ki 19:26; Prov 27:25; Isa 37:27; 66:14 the King James Version), but generally GRASS (which see).
(4) chatsir, vegetation generally, but translated GRASS (which see).
(5) 'oroth, 'owroth (plural only), "green plants" or "herbs." In 2 Ki 4:39 the Talmud interprets it to mean "colewort," but it may mean any edible herbs which had survived the drought. In Isa 26:19 the expression "dew of herbs" is in the margin translated "dew of light" which is more probable (see DEW ), and the translation "heat upon herbs" (Isa 18:4 the King James Version) is in the Revised Version (British and American) translated "clear heat in sunshine."
(6) botane (Heb 6:7).
(7) lachana = yaraq (Mt 13:32).
See also BITTER HERBS .
E. W. G. Masterman
hur'-ku-lez (Herakles): The process of Hellenizing the Jews which began at an earlier date was greatly promoted under Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 BC). Jason, who supplanted his brother Onias in the office of high priest by promising Antiochus an increase of tribute, aided the movement by setting up under the king's authority a Greek palaestra for the training of youth in Greek exercises, and by registering the inhabitants of Jerusalem as citizens of Antioch (2 Macc 4:8 f). Certain of these Antiochians of Jerusalem Jason sent to Tyre, where games were held every five years in honor of Hercules, that is, the national Tyrian deity Melcart, identified with Baal of Old Testament history. According to Josephus (Ant., VII, v, 3) Hiram, king of Tyre in the days of Solomon, built the temple of Hercules and also of Astarte. Jason s deputies carried 300 drachmas of silver for the sacrifice of Hercules, but they were so ashamed of their commission that they "thought it not right to use the money for any sacrifice" and "on account of present circumstances it went to the equipment of the galleys" (2 Macc 4:18-20).
J. Hutchison
hurd.
See CATTLE .
hurdz'-man (boqer; the King James Version, the English Revised Version "herdman"): A cowherd (Am 7:14). The same word is used in Syria today. ro`eh, has its equivalent in the language of Syria and Palestine (Arabic ra'i), and is a general term for any kind of a herdsman (Gen 13:7,8; 26:20; 1 Sam 21:7). noqedh, occurs in one passage (Am 1:1); literally it means one who spots or marks the sheep, hence, a herdsman. Spotting the wool with different dyes is still the method of distinguishing between the sheep of different flocks. The herdsman is seldom the owner of the sheep, but a hireling.
See SHEEP ;SHEEP TENDING .
James A. Patch
her, in composition:
her-aft'-er (here (this present) and after) represents Hebrew 'achar, "hinder part," "end" (Isa 41:23), "the things that are to come hereafter" ('achor after, behind the present), with den, "this," 'achare dhen, Aramaic (Dan 2:29,45), 'achar, "after," "behind," "last" (Ezek 20:39), Greek ap' arti, "from now" (Mt 26:64), "Hereafter ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven," which does not mean "at a future time" according to the more modern usage of "hereafter," but (as the Greek) "from now," the Revised Version (British and American) "henceforth"; Tyndale and the chief versions after him have "hereafter," but Wycliff has "fro hennes forth." Jn 1:51, "Hereafter ye shall see the heaven opened," etc., where "hereafter" has the same meaning; it is omitted by the Revised Version (British and American) after a corrected text (Wycliff also omits); eti, "yet," "still," "any more" "any longer" (Jn 14:30, the Revised Version (British and American) "I will no more speak much with you," Wycliff, "now I schal not"); meketi, "no more," "no longer" (Mk 11:14, "no man eat fruit of thee hereafter," the Revised Version (British and American) "henceforward"); apo tou nun, "from now" (Lk 22:69, the Revised Version (British and American) "From henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God," Wycliff "aftir this tyme"); meta tauta (Jn 13:7, "Thou shalt know (the Revised Version (British and American) "understand") hereafter," Wycliff "aftirward").
her-bi', represents bezo'th, "in or by this" (Gen 42:15 "Hereby ye shall be proved"); ek toutou, "out of this" (1 Jn 4:6, the Revised Version (British and American) "by this"); en touto, "in this," "by this means" (1 Cor 4:4; 1 Jn 2:3,1; 3:16,19,24; 4:2,13).
he-red'-i-ti:
Heredity, in modern language, is the law by which living beings tend to repeat their characteristics, physiological and psychical, in their offspring, a law familiar in some form to even the most uncultured peoples. The references to it in the Bible are of various kinds.
Curiously enough, little mention is made of physiological heredity, even in so simple a form as the resemblance of a son to his father, but there are a few references, such as, e.g., those to giants with giants for sons (2 Sam 21:18-22; 1 Ch 20:4-8; compare Gen 6:4; Nu 13:33; Dt 1:28, etc.). Moreover Dt 28:59-61 may contain a thought of hereditary diseases (compare 2 Ki 5:27). On the psychical side the data are almost equally scanty. That a son and his father may differ entirely is taken for granted and mentioned repeatedly (especially in Ezek 18:5-20). Even in the case of the king, the frequent changes of dynasty prevented such a phrase as "the seed royal" (2 Ki 11:1; Jer 41:1) from being taken very seriously. Yet, perhaps, the inheritance of mechanical dexterity is hinted at in Gen 4:20-22, if "father" means anything more than "teacher." But, in any case, the fact that "father" could have this metaphorical sense, together with the corresponding use of "son" in such phrases as "son of Belial" (Jdg 19:22 the King James Version), "son of wickedness" (Ps 89:22), "sons of the prophets" (Am 7:14 margin, etc.), "son of the wise, .... of ancient kings" (Isa 19:11; this last phrase may be meant literally), shows that the inheritance of characteristics was a very familiar fact.
See SON .
2. Hebrew Conception of Heredity:
The question, however, is considerably complicated by the intense solidarity that the Hebrews ascribed to the family. The individual was felt to be only a link in the chain, his "personality" (very vaguely conceived) somehow continuing that of his ancestors and being continued in that of his descendants. After death the happiness (or even existence; see DEATH ) of this shade in the other world depended on the preservation of a posterity in this. Hence, slaying the sons of a dead man was thought to affect him directly, and it would be a great mistake to suppose that an act such as that of 2 Sam 21:1-9, etc., was simply to prevent a blood-feud. Nor was it at all in point that the children might repeat the qualities of the father, however much this may have been realized in other connections. Consequently, it is impossible to tell in many cases just how much of a modern heredity idea is present.
The most important example is the conception of the position of the nations. These are traced back to single ancestors, and in various cases the qualities of the nation are explained by those of the ancestor (Gen 9:22-27; 21:20,21; 49, etc.). The influences that determine national characteristics are evidently thought to be hereditary, and yet not all of them are hereditary in our sense; e.g. in Gen 27, the condition of the descendants of Jacob and Esau is conceived to have been fixed by the nature of the blessings (mistakenly) pronounced by Isaac. On the other hand, Ezra (9:11,12) thinks of the danger of intermarrying with the children of a degenerate people in an entirely modern style, but in Dt 23:3-6 the case is not so clear. There a curse pronounced on the nations for their active hostility is more in point than moral degeneracy (however much this may be spoken of elsewhere, Nu 25:1-3, etc.), and it is on account of the curse that the taint takes ten generations to work itself out, while, in the case of Edomite or Egyptian blood, purity was attained in three. Hence, it is hard to tell just how Ex 20:5,6 was interpreted. The modern conception of the effect of heredity was surely present in part, but there must have been also ideas of the extension of the curse-bearing individuality that we should find hard to understand.
The chiefest question is that of the Israelites. Primarily they are viewed as the descendants of Abraham, blessed because he was blessed (Gen 22:15-18, etc.). This was taken by many with the utmost literalness, and physical descent from Abraham was thought to be sufficient (especially Mt 3:9; Jn 8:31-44; Rom 9:6-13), or at least necessary (especially Ezr 2:59; 9:2; Neh 7:61), for salvation. Occasionally this descent is stated to give superior qualities in other regards (Est 6:13). But a distinction between natural inheritance of Abraham's qualities and the blessing bestowed by God's unbounded favor and decree on his descendants must have been thoroughly recognized, otherwise the practice of proselytizing would have been impossible.
4. Heredity and the New Testament:
In the New Testament the doctrine of original sin, held already by a certain school among the Jews (2 Esdras 7:48), alone raises much question regarding heredity (compare 1 Cor 7:14). Otherwise the Old Testament concepts are simply reversed: where likeness of nature appears, there is (spiritual) descent (Rom 4:12; Gal 3:7, etc.). None the less, that the Israel "after the flesh" has a real spiritual privilege is stated explicitly (Rom 3:1,2; 11:26; Rev 11:13).
See BLESSING ;CURSE ;FAMILY ;SALVATION ;SIN ;TRADITION .
Burton Scott Easton
her-in', Hebrew bezo'th, "in" or "by this" (Gen 34:22, the Revised Version (British and American) "on this condition"); en touta (Jn 4:37; 9:30; 15:8; Acts 24:16; 2 Cor 8:10; 1 Jn 4:10,17).
her-ov', Greek haute, "this" (Mt 9:26); houtos, "this" (Heb 5:3, the Revised Version (British and American) "thereof").
he'-rez, he'-res:
(1) har-cherec, "Mount Heres" (Jdg 1:34 f), a district from which the Amorites were not expelled; it is mentioned along with Aijalon and Shallbim. In Josh 19:41 f we have then two towns in association with Ir-shemesh and many authorities consider that as cherec = shemesh, i.e. the sun, and har, being perhaps a copyist's error for `ir, "city," we have in Jdg 1:34 a reference to Beth-shemesh, the modern `Ain Shems. Conder thinks that Batn Harasheh, Northeast of Aijalon, a prominent hill, may be the place referred to. Budde thinks Har-heres may be identified with the Bit-Ninib (Ninib being the fierce morning sun) of the Tell el-Amarna Letters; this place was in the district of Jerusalem.
(2) ma`aleh he-charec, "the ascent of Heres" (Jdg 8:13, the King James Version "before the sun was up"), the place from which Gideon returned to Succoth after his defeat of Zebah and Zalmunna. the Revised Version (British and American) is probably a great improvement on the King James Version, but both the text and the topography are uncertain.
(3) `ir ha-cherec, "City of Heres" EVm, "City of Destruction" (cherem) English Versions of the Bible, or "City of the sun" cherec) English Versions, margin. This is the name of one of the "five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan, and swear to Yahweh of hosts" (Isa 19:18).
See IR-HA-HERES .
E. W. G. Masterman
he'-resh (cheresh; the Septuagint's Codex Vaticanus, Rharaiel; Codex Alexandrinus, Hares): A Levite (1 Ch 9:15).
her'-e-si, her'-e-si (hairesis, from verb haireo, "to choose"): The word has acquired an ecclesiastical meaning that has passed into common usage, containing elements not found in the term in the New Testament, except as implied in one passage. In classical Greek, it may be used either in a good or a bad sense, first, simply for "choice," then, "a chosen course of procedure," and afterward of various schools and tendencies. Polybius refers to those devoting themselves to the study of Greek literature as given to the Hellenike hairesis. It was used not simply for a teaching or a course followed, but also for those devoting themselves to such pursuit, namely, a sect, or assembly of those advocating a particular doctrine or mode of life. Thus, in Acts, the word is used in the Greek, where the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) have "sect," "sect of the Sadducees" (Acts 5:17), "sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5). In Acts 26:5 the Pharisees are called "the straitest hairesis (sect)." The name was applied contemptuously to Christianity (Acts 24:14; 28:22). Its application, with censure, is found in 1 Cor 11:19 m; Gal 5:20 margin, where it is shown to interfere with that unity of faith and community of interests that belong to Christians. There being but one standard of truth, and one goal for all Christian life, any arbitrary choice varying from what was common to all believers, becomes an inconsistency and a sin to be warned against. Ellicott, on Gal 5:20, correctly defines "heresies" (King James Version, the English Revised Version) as "a more aggravated form of dichostasia" (the American Standard Revised Version "parties") "when the divisions have developed into distinct and organized parties"; so also 1 Cor 11:19, translated by the Revised Version (British and American) "factions." In 2 Pet 2:1, the transition toward the subsequent ecclesiastical sense can be traced. The "destructive heresies" (Revised Version margin, the English Revised Version margin "sects of perdition") are those guilty of errors both of doctrine and of life very fully described throughout the entire chapter, and who, in such course, separated themselves from the fellowship of the church.
In the fixed ecclesiastical sense that it ultimately attained, it indicated not merely any doctrinal error, but "the open espousal of fundamental error" (Ellicott on Tit 3:10), or, more fully, the persistent, obstinate maintenance of an error with respect to the central doctrines of Christianity in the face of all better instruction, combined with aggressive attack upon the common faith of the church, and its defenders. Roman Catholics, regarding all professed Christians who are not in their communion as heretics, modify their doctrine on this point by distinguishing between Formal and terial Heresy, the former being unconscious and unintentional, and between different degrees of each of these classes (Cath. Encyclopedia, VII, 256 ff). For the development of the ecclesiastical meaning, see Suicer's Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, I, 119-23.
H. E. Jacobs
he'-reth (ya`-ar chareth; Septuagint polis Sareik; the King James Version Hareth): David (1 Sam 22:5) was told by the prophet Gad to depart from Mizpah of Moab and go to the land of Judah, and he "came into the forest of Hereth." The Septuagint has "city" instead of forest; see also Josephus, Ant,VI , xii, 4. The village Kharas, on an ancient high road, 3 miles Southeast of Aid el ma, probably David's stronghold ADULLAM (which see), may possibly answer to the place (PEF, III, 305, Sh XXI). "Horesh" has been suggested as an alternative reading.
E. W. G. Masterman
her'-e-tik, her'-e-tik, he-ret'-i-kal (hairetikos): Used in Tit 3:10, must be interpreted according to the sense in which Paul employs the word "heresy" (1 Cor 11:19; Gal 5:20) for "parties" or "factions." According to this, the Scriptural meaning of the word is no more than "a factious man" (American Standard Revised Version), an agitator who creates divisions and makes parties. Weizsacker translates it into German ein Sektierer, "a sectarist." The nature of the offense is described in other words in 2 Thess 2:6,11.
her-too-for', Hebrew temol, "yesterday," "neither heretofore, nor since" (Ex 4:10; compare 5:7,8,14; Josh 3:4; Ruth 2:11); 'ethmol shilshom, "yesterday," "third day" (1 Sam 4:7, "There hath not been such a thing heretofore."
her-un-too', Greek eis touto, "unto," "with a view to this" (1 Pet 2:21, "For hereunto were ye called"): "hereunto" is supplied (Eccl 2:25, "Who else can hasten hereunto more than I" the Revised Version (British and American) "who can have enjoyment," margin "hasten thereto").
her-with', Hebrew ba-zo'th, bezo'th, "in," "by," or "with this" (Ezek 16:29; Mal 3:10, "Prove me now herewith, saith Yahweh").
The Revised Version (British and American) has "herein" for "to do this" (Ezr 4:22); for "in these things" (Rom 14:18); "of them that have sinned heretofore" for "which have sinned already" (2 Cor 12:21); "hereunto" for "thereunto" (1 Pet 3:9); "herewith" for "thus" (Lev 16:3).
W. L. Walker
her'-i-taj (nachalah, from nachal, "to give"; kleroo): That which is allotted, possession, property, portion, share, peculiar right, inheritance; applied to land transferred from the Canaanites to Israel (Ps 11:6; 136:22); to Israel, as the heritage of Yahweh (Joel 3:2, etc.). In the New Testament (Eph 1:11) applied to believers, the spiritual Israel, as God's peculiar possession (Ellicott, Eadie).
hur'-mas (Hermas): An abbreviated form of several names, e.g. Hermagoras, Hermeros, Hermodorus, Hermogenes, etc.; the name of a Roman Christian to whom Paul sent greetings (Rom 16:14). Origen and some later writers have identified him with the author of The Pastor of Hermas, but without sufficient reason. According to the Canon of Muratori, the author of The Pastor wrote when his brother Pius was bishop of Rome (140-55 AD). He speaks of himself, however, as a contemporary of Clement of Rome (chapter 4) (circa 100 AD). The name Hermas is very common, and Origen's identification is purely conjectural.
S. F. Hunter
hur-me-nu'-tiks.
See INTERPRETATION .
hur'-mez (Hermes): In the Revised Version margin of Acts 14:12 for "Mercury" in text (the King James Version "Mercurius").
(Hermes): The name of a Roman Christian, otherwise unknown, to whom Paul sent greetings (Rom 16:14). "Hermes is among the commonest slave names. In the household alone probably not less than a score of persons might be counted up from the inscriptions, who bore this name at or about the time when Paul wrote" (Lightfoot, Philippians, 176).
her-moj'-e-nez (Hermogenes, literally "born of Hermes," a Greek deity, called by the Romans, "Mercury," 2 Tim 1:15):
Hermogenes was a Christian, mentioned by Paul as having, along with Phygellus and "all that are in Asia," turned away from him. It is not clear when or where the defection of those Asiatic Christians from the apostle took place, whether it was at Rome at the time of Paul's second imprisonment there, and especially on the occasion of his being brought before the emperor's supreme court, to be tried on a charge now involving the death penalty, or whether it was at some previous time in Ephesus.
If it was the latter, then the meaning is that Paul wishes to inform Timothy, or perhaps only to remind him, how in Ephesus, where Timothy was the presiding minister of the church, these persons, Phygellus and Hermogenes with many more, had turned away from him, that is, had refused to submit to his authority, and had rejected the Christian doctrine which he taught. This latter meaning, referring the "turning away" to some previous occasion in Ephesus, is thought by some expositors to be the probable signification, owing to the fact that the verb "they be turned away" is in the aorist tense, referring to a time long past when the apostle wrote.
3. Unlikelihood of It Being in Ephesus:
On the other hand there is no evidence that there ever was a time when "all they which are in Asia" (the King James Version) turned away from obedience to Paul. Whatever may have been the disloyalty and disobedience of individuals--and this certainly existed; see, e.g., Acts 20:29 f--yet, certainly the New Testament does not show that all that were in Asia, the Christian community as a whole, in Ephesus and Miletus and Laodicea and Hierapolis and Colosse and other places, repudiated his apostolic authority.
4. Probalility of It Being in Rome:
If the words "all they which are in Asia" refer to all the Christians from the proconsular province of Asia, who happened to be in Rome at the time of Paul's second imprisonment there, it can easily be understood that they should turn away from him at that testing time. It is impossible to say exactly what form their desertion of the apostle assumed. Their turning away would likely be caused by fear, lest if it were known that they were friends of the prisoner in the Mamertine, they would be involved in the same imprisonment as had overtaken him, and probably also in the same death penalty.
It is altogether in favor of a reference to Rome, that what is said about Phygellus and Hermogenes and their turning away from Paul is immediately followed by a reference to Onesiphorus, and to the great kindness which he showed, when he sought the apostle but very diligently in Rome. On the whole, therefore, a reference to Rome and to the manner in which these persons, named and unnamed, from Asia, had deserted Paul, seems most probable.
See PHYGELLUS .
John Rutherfurd
hur'-mon (chermon; Codex Vaticanus, Haermon):
The name of the majestic mountain in which the Anti-Lebanon range terminates to the South (Dt 3:8, etc.). It reaches a height of 9,200 ft. above the sea, and extends some 16 to 20 miles from North to South. It was called Sirion by the Sidonians (Dt 3:9; compare Ps 29:6), and Senir by the Amorites (Dt 3:9). It is also identified with Sion (Dt 4:48). See SIRION ;SENIR ;SION . Sometimes it is called "Mt. Hermon" (Dt 3:8; Josh 11:17; 1 Ch 5:23, etc.); at other times simply "Hermon" (Josh 11:3; Ps 89:12, etc.).
Once it is called "Hermons" (chermonim). the King James Version mistakenly renders this "the Hermonites" (Ps 42:6). It must be a reference to the triple summits of the mountain. There are three distinct heads, rising near the middle of the mass, the two higher being toward the East. The eastern declivities are steep and bare; the western slopes are more gradual; and while the upper reaches are barren, the lower are well wooded; and as one descends he passes through fruitful vineyards and orchards, finally entering the rich fields below, in Wady etteim. The Aleppo pine, the oak, and the poplar are plentiful. The wolf and the leopard are still to be found on the mountain; and it is the last resort of the brown, or Syrian, bear. Snow lies long on the summits and shoulders of the mountain; and in some of the deeper hollows, especially to the North, it may be seen through most of the year.
Mt. Hermon is the source of many blessings to the land over which it so proudly lifts its splendid form. Refreshing breezes blow from its cold heights. Its snows are carried to Damascus and to the towns on the seaboard, where, mingled with the sharab, "drink," they mitigate the heat of the Syrian summer. Great reservoirs in the depths of the mountain, fed by the melting snows, find outlet in the magnificent springs at Chasbeiyeh, Tell el-Kady, and Banias, while the dew-clouds of Hermon bring a benediction wherever they are carried (Ps 133:3).
Hermon marked the northern limit of Joshua's victorious campaigns (Josh 12:1, etc.). It was part, of the dominion of Og (Josh 12:5), and with the fall of that monarch, it would naturally come under Israelite influence. Its remote and solitary heights must have attracted worshippers from the earliest times; and we cannot doubt that it was a famous sanctuary in far antiquity. Under the highest peak are the ruins of Kacr `Antar, which may have been an ancient sanctuary of Baal. Eusebius, Onomasticon, speaks of a temple on the summit much frequented by the surrounding peoples; and the remains of many temples of the Roman period have been found on the sides and at the base of the mountain. The sacredness of Hermon may be inferred from the allusion in Ps 89:12 (compare Enoch 6:6; and see alsoBAAL-HERMON ).
Some have thought that the scene of the Transfiguration should be sought here; see, however, TRANSFIGURATION, MOUNT OF.
The modern name of Hermon is Jebel eth-thilj, "mount of snow," or Jebel esh-sheikh, "mount of the elder," or "of the chief."
Little Hermon, the name now often applied to the hill between Tabor and Gilboa, possibly the Hill of Moreh, on which is the sanctuary of Neby Dahy, has no Biblical authority, and dates only from the Middle Ages.
W. Ewing
hur'-mon-its: In Ps 42:6 the King James Version, where the Revised Version (British and American) reads "Hermons."
See HERMON .
her'-ud: The name Herod (Herodes) is a familiar one in the history of the Jews and of the early Christian church. The name itself signifies "heroic," a name not wholly applicable to the family, which was characterized by craft and knavery rather than by heroism. The fortunes of the Herodiam family are inseparably connected with the last flickerings of the flame of Judaism, as a national power, before it was forever extinguished in the great Jewish war of rebellion, 70 AD. The history of the Herodian family is not lacking in elements of greatness, but whatever these elements were and in whomsoever found, they were in every ease dimmed by the insufferable egotism which disfigured the family, root and branch. Some of the Herodian princes were undeniably talented; but these talents, wrongly used, left no marks for the good of the people of Israel. Of nearly all the kings of the house of Herod it may truly be said that at their death "they went without being desired," unmissed, unmourned. The entire family history is one of incessant brawls, suspicion, intrigue arid shocking immorality. In the baleful and waning light of the rule of the Herodians, Christ lived and died, and under it the foundations of the Christian church were laid.1 Cor 11:19 m; Gal 5:20 margin, where it is shown to interfere with that unity of faith and community of interests that belong to Christians. There being but one standard of truth, and one goal for all Christian life, any arbitrary choice varying from what was common to all believers, becomes an inconsistency and a sin to be warned against. Ellicott, on Gal 5:20, correctly defines "heresies" (King James Version, the English Revised Version) as "a more aggravated form of dichostasia" (the American Standard Revised Version "parties") "when the divisions have developed into distinct and organized parties"; so also 1 Cor 11:19, translated by the Revised Version (British and American) "factions." In 2 Pet 2:1, the transition toward the subsequent ecclesiastical sense can be traced. The "destructive heresies" (Revised Version margin, the English Revised Version margin "sects of perdition") are those guilty of errors both of doctrine and of life very fully described throughout the entire chapter, and who, in such course, separated themselves from the fellowship of the church.
The Herodians were not of Jewish stock. Herod the Great encouraged the circulation of the legend of the family descent from an illustrious Babylonian Jew (Ant., XIV, i, 3), but it has no historic basis. It is true the Idumeans were at that time nominal Jews, since they were subdued by John Hyrcanus in 125 BC, and embodied in the Asmonean kingdom through an enforced circumcision, but the old national antagonism remained (Gen 27:41). The Herodian family sprang from Antipas (died 78 BC), who was appointed governor of Idumaea by Alexander Janneus. His son Antipater, who succeeded him, possessed al the cunning, resourcefulness and unbridled ambition of his son Herod the Great. He had an open eye for two things--the unconquerable strength of the Roman power and the pitiable weakness of the decadent Asmonean house, and on these two factors he built the house of his hopes. He craftily chose the side of Hyrcanus II in his internecine war with Aristobulus his brother (69 BC), and induced him to seek the aid of the Romans. Together they supported the claims of Pompey and, after the latter's defeat, they availed themselves of the magnanimity of Caesar to submit to him, after the crushing defeat of Pompey at Pharsalus (48 BC). As a reward, Antipater received the procuratorship of Judea (47 BC), while his innocent dupe Hyrcanus had to satisfy himself with the high-priesthood. Antipater died by the hand of an assassin (43 BC) and left four sons, Phasael, Herod the Great, Joseph, Pheroras, and a daughter Salome. The second of these sons raised the family to its highest pinnacle of power and glory. Pheroras was nominally his co-regent ann, possessed of his father's cunning, maintained himself to the end, surviving his cruel brother, but he cuts a small figure in the family history. He, as well as his sister Salome, proved an endless source of trouble to Herod by the endless family brawls which they occasioned.
With a different environment and with a different character, Herod the Great might have been worthy of the surname which he now bears only as a tribute of inane flattery. What we know of him, we owe, in the main, to the exhaustive treatment of the subject by Josephus in his Antiquities and Jewish War, and from Strabo and Dio Cassius among the classics. We may subsume our little sketch of Herod's life under the heads of (1) political activity, (2) evidences of talent, and (3) character and domestic life.
Antipater had great ambitions for his son. Herod was only a young man when he began his career as governor of Galilee. Josephus' statement, however, that he was only "fifteen years old" (Ant., XIV, ix, 2) is evidently the mistake of some transcriber, because we are told (XVII, viii, 1) that "he continued his life till a very old age." That was 42 years later, so that Herod at this time must have been at least 25 years old. His activity and success in ridding his dominion of dangerous bands of freebooters, and his still greater success in raising the always welcome tribute-money for the Roman government, gained for him additional power at court. His advance became rapid. Antony appointed him "tetrarch" of Judea in 41 BC, and although he was forced by circumstances temporarily to leave his domain in the hands of the Parthians and of Antigonus, this, in the end, proved a blessing in disguise. In this final spasm of the dying Asmonean house, Antigonus took Jerusalem by storm, and Phasael, Herod's oldest brother, fell into his hands. The latter was governor of the city, and foreseeing his fate, he committed suicide by dashing out his brains against the walls of his prison. Antigonus incapacitated his brother Hyrcanus, who was captured at the same time, from ever holding the holy office again by cropping off his ears (Ant., XIV, xiii, 10). Meanwhile, Herod was at Rome, and through the favor of Antony and Augustus he obtained the crown of Judea in 37 BC. The fond ambition of his heart was now attained, although he had literally to carve out his own empire with the sword. He made quick work of the task, cut his way back into Judea and took Jerusalem by storm in 37 BC.
The first act of his reign was the extermination of the Asmonean house, to which Herod himself was related through his marriage with Mariamne, the grandchild of Hyrcanus. Antigonus was slain and with him 45 of his chief adherents. Hyrcanus was recalled from Babylon, to which he had been banished by Antigonus, but the high-priesthood was bestowed on Aristobulus, Herod's brother-in-law, who, however, soon fell a victim to the suspicion and fear of the king (Ant., XV, iii, 3). These outrages against the purest blood in Judea turned the love of Mariamne, once cherished for Herod, into a bitter hatred. The Jews, loyal to the dynasty of the Maccabees, accused Herod before the Roman court, but he was summarily acquitted by Antony. Hyrcanus, mutilated and helpless as he was, soon followed Aristobulus in the way of death, 31 BC (Ant., XV, vi, 1). When Antony, who had ever befriended Herod, was conquered by Augustus at Actium (31 BC), Herod quickly turned to the powers that were, and, by subtle flattery and timely support, won the imperial favor. The boundaries of his kingdom were now extended by Rome. And Herod proved equal to the greater task. By a decisive victory over the Arabians, he showed, as he had done in his earlier Galilean government, what manner of man he was, when aroused to action. The Arabians were wholly crushed, and submitted themselves unconditionally under the power of Herod (Ant., XV, v, 5). Afraid to leave a remnant of the Asmonean power alive, he sacrificed Mariamne his wife, the only human being he ever seems to have loved (28 BC), his mother-in-law Alexandra (Ant., XV, vii, 8), and ultimately, shortly before his death, even his own sons by Mariamne, Alexander and Aristobulus 7 BC (Ant., XVI, xi, 7). In his emulation of the habits and views of life of the Romans, he continually offended and defied his Jewish subjects, by the introduction of Roman sports and heathen temples in his dominion. His influence on the younger Jews in this regard was baneful, and slowly a distinct partly arose, partly political, partly religious, which called itself the Herodian party, Jews in outward religious forms but Gentiles in their dress and in their whole view of life. They were a bitter offense to the rest of the nation, but were associated with the Pharisees and Sadducees in their opposition to Christ (Mt 22:16; Mk 3:6; 12:13). In vain Herod tried to win over the Jews, by royal charity in time of famine, and by yielding, wherever possible, to their bitter prejudices. They saw in him only a usurper of the throne of David, maintained by the strong arm of the hated Roman oppressor. Innumerable plots were made against his life, but, with almost superhuman cunning, Herod defeated them all (Ant., XV, viii). He robbed his own people that he might give munificent gifts to the Romans; he did not even spare the grave of King David, which was held in almost idolatrous reverence by the people, but robbed it of its treasures (Ant., XVI, vii, 1). The last days of Herod were embittered by endless court intrigues and conspiracies, by an almost insane suspicion on the part of the aged king, and by increasing indications of the restlessness of the nation. Like Augustus himself, Herod was the victim of an incurable and loathsome disease. His temper became more irritable, as the malady made progress, and he made both himself and his court unutterably miserable. The picture drawn by Josephus (Ant., XVII) is lifelike and tragic in its vividness. In his last will and testament, he remained true to his life-long fawning upon the Roman power (Ant., XVII, vi, 1). So great became his suffering toward the last that he made a fruitless attempt at suicide. But, true to his character, one of the last acts of his life was an order to execute his son Antipater, who had instigated the murder of his halfbrothers, Alexander and Aristobulus, and another order to slay, after his death, a number of nobles, who were guilty of a small outbreak at Jerusalem and who were confined in the hippodrome (Ant., XVI, vi, 5). He died in the 37th year of his reign, 34 years after he had captured Jerusalem and slain Antigonus. Josephus writes this epitaph: "A man he was of great barbarity toward all men equally, and a slave to his passions, but above the consideration of what was right. Yet was he favored by fortune as much as any man ever was, for from a private man he became a king, and though he were encompassed by ten thousand dangers, he got clear of them all and continued his life to a very old age" (Ant., XVII, viii, 1).
The life of Herod the Great was not a fortuitous chain of favorable accidents. He was unquestionably a man of talent. In a family like that of Antipus and Antipater, talent must necessarily be hereditary, and Herod inherited it more largely than any of his brothers. His whole life exhibits in no small degree statecraft, power of organization, shrewdness. He knew men and he knew how to use them. He won the warmest friendship of Roman emperors, and had a faculty of convincing the Romans of the righteousness of his cause, in every contingency. In his own dominions he was like Ishmael, his hand against all, and the hands of all against him, and yet he maintained himself in the government for a whole generation. His Galilean governorship showed what manner of man he was, a man with iron determination and great generalship. His Judean conquest proved the same thing, as did his Arabian war. Herod was a born leader of men. Under a different environment he might have developed into a truly great man, and had his character been coordinate with his gifts, he might have done great things for the Jewish people. But by far the greatest talent of Herod was his singular architectural taste and ability. Here he reminds one of the old Egyptian Pharaohs. Against the laws of Judaism, which he pretended to obey, he built at Jerusalem a magnificent theater and an amphitheater, of which the ruins remain. The one was within the city, the other outside the walls. Thus he introduced into the ascetic sphere of the Jewish life the frivolous spirit of the Greeks and the Romans. To offset this cruel infraction of all the maxims of orthodox Judaism, he tried to placate the nation by rebuilding the temple of Zerubbabel and making it more magnificent than even Solomon's temple had been. This work was accomplished somewhere between 19 BC and 11 or 9 BC, although the entire work was not finished till the procuratorship of Albinus, 62-64 AD (Ant., XV, xi, 5, 6; XX, ix, 7; Jn 2:20). It was so transcendently beautiful that it ranked among the world's wonders, and Josephus does not tire of describing its glories (BJ, V, v). Even Titus sought to spare the building in the final attack on the city (BJ, VI, iv, 3). Besides this, Herod rebuilt and beautified Struto's Tower, which he called after the emperor, Caesarea. He spent 12 years in this gigantic work, building a theater and amphitheater, and above all in achieving the apparently impossible by creating a harbor where there was none before. This was accomplished by constructing a gigantic mole far out into the sea, and so enduring was the work that the remains of it are seen today. The Romans were so appreciative of the work done by Herod that they made Caesarea the capital of the new regime, after the passing away of the Herodian power. Besides this, Herod rebuilt Samaria, to the utter disgust of the Jews, calling it Sebaste. In Jerusalem itself he built the three great towers, Antonia, Phasaelus and Mariamne, which survived even the catastrophe of the year 70 AD. All over Herod's dominion were found the evidences of this constructive passion. Antipatris was built by him, on the site of the ancient Kapharsaba, as well as the stronghold Phasaelus near Jericho, where he was destined to see so much suffering and ultimately to die. He even reached beyond his own domain to satisfy this building mania at Ascalon, Damascus, Tyre and Sidon, Tripoli, Ptolemais, nay even at Athens and Lacedaemon. But the universal character of these operations itself occasioned the bitterest hatred against him on the part of the narrowminded Jews.
(3) Characteristics and Domestic Life.
The personality of Herod was impressive, and he was possessed of great physical strength. His intellectual powers were far beyond the ordinary; his will was indomitable; he was possessed of great tact, when he saw fit to employ it; in the great crises of his life he was never at a loss what to do; and no one has ever accused Herod the Great of cowardice. There were in him two distinct individualities, as was the case with Nero. Two powers struggled in him for the mastery, and the lower one at last gained complete control. During the first part of his reign there were evidences of large-heartedness, of great possibilities in the man. But the bitter experiences of his life, the endless whisperings and warnings of his court, the irreconcilable spirit of the Jews, as well as the consciousness of his own wrongdoing, changed him into a Jewish Nero: a tyrant, who bathed his own house and his own people in blood. The demons of Herod's life were jealousy of power, and suspicion, its necessary companion.
He was the incarnation of brute lust, which in turn became the burden of the lives of his children. History tells of few more immoral families than the house of Herod, which by intermarriage of its members so entangled the genealogical tree as to make it a veritable puzzle. As these marriages were nearly all within the line of forbidden consanguinity, under the Jewish law, they still further embittered the people of Israel against the Herodian family. When Herod came to the throne of Judea, Phasael was dead. Joseph his younger brother had fallen in battle (Ant., XIV, xv, 10), and only Pheroras and Salome survived. The first, as we have seen, nominally shared the government with Herod, but was of little consequence and only proved a thorn in the king's flesh by his endless interference and plotting. To him were allotted the revenues of the East Jordanic territory. Salome, his sister, was ever neck-deep in the intrigues of the Herodian family, but had the cunning of a fox and succeeded in making Herod believe in her unchangeable loyalty, although the king had killed her own son-in-law and her nephew, Aristobulus, his own son. The will of Herod, made shortly before his death, is a convincing proof of his regard for his sister (Ant., XVII, viii, 1).
His domestic relations were very unhappy. Of his marriage with Doris and of her son, Antipater, he reaped only misery, the son, as stated above, ultimately falling a victim to his father's wrath, when the crown, for which he plotted, was practically within his grasp. Herod appears to have been deeply in love with Mariamne, the grandchild of Hyrcanus, in so far as he was capable of such a feeling, but his attitude toward the entire Asmonean family and his fixed determination to make an end of it changed whatever love Mariamne had for him into hatred. Ultimately she, as well as her two sons, fell victims to Herod's insane jealousy of power. Like Nero, however, in a similar situation, Herod felt the keenest remorse after her death. As his sons grew up, the family tragedy thickened, and the court of Herod became a veritable hotbed of mutual recriminations, intrigues and catastrophes. The trials and executions of his own conspiring sons were conducted with the acquiescence of the Roman power, for Herod was shrewd enough not to make a move without it. Yet so thoroughly was the condition of the Jewish court understood at Rome, that Augustus, after the death of Mariamne's sons (7 BC), is said to have exclaimed: "I would rather be Herod's hog hus than his son huios." At the time of his death, the remaining sons were these: Herod, son of Mariamne, Simon's daughter; Archelaus and Antipas, sons of Malthace, and Herod Philip, son of Cleopatra of Jerusalem. Alexander and Aristobulus were killed, through the persistent intrigues of Antipater, the oldest son and heir presumptive to the crown, and he himself fell into the grave he had dug for his brothers.
By the final testament of Herod, as ratified by Rome, the kingdom was divided as follows: Archelaus received one-half of the kingdom, with the title of king, really "ethnarch," governing Judea, Samaria and Idumaea; Antipas was appointed "tetrarch" of Galilee and Peraea; Philip, "tetrarch" of Trachonitis, Gaulonitis and Paneas. To Salome, his intriguing sister, he bequeathed Jamnia, Ashdod and Phasaelus, together with 500,000 drachmas of coined silver. All his kindred were liberally provided for in his will, "so as to leave them all in a wealthy condition" (Ant., XVII, viii, 1). In his death he had been better to his family than in his life. He died unmourned and unbeloved by his own people, to pass into history as a name soiled by violence and blood. As the waters of Callirhoe were unable to cleanse his corrupting body, those of time were unable to wash away the stains of a tyrant's name. The only time he is mentioned in the New Testament is in Mt 2 and Lk 1. In Matthew he is associated with the wise men of the East, who came to investigate the birth of the "king of the Jews." Learning their secret, Herod found out from the "priests and scribes of the people" where the Christ was to be born and ordered the "massacre of the innocents," with which his name is perhaps more generally associated than with any other act of his life. As Herod died in 4 BC and some time elapsed between the massacre and his death (Mt 2:19), we have here a clue to the approximate fixing of the true date of Christ's birth. Another, in this same connection, is an eclipse of the moon, the only one mentioned by Josephus (Ant., XVII, vi, 4; text and note), which was seen shortly before Herod's death. This eclipse occurred on March 13, in the year of the Julian Period, 4710, therefore 4 BC.
Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace, a Samaritan woman. Half Idumean, half Samaritan, he had therefore not a drop of Jewish blood in his veins, and "Galilee of the Gentiles" seemed a fit dominion for such a prince. He ruled as "tetrarch" of Galilee and Peraea (Lk 3:1) from 4 BC till 39 AD. The gospel picture we have of him is far from prepossessing. He is superstitious (Mt 14:1 f), foxlike in his cunning (Lk 13:31 f) and wholly immoral. John the Baptist was brought into his life through an open rebuke of his gross immorality and defiance of the laws of Moses (Lev 18:16), and paid for his courage with his life (Mt 14:10; Ant, XVIII, v, 2).
On the death of his father, although he was younger than his brother Archelaus (Ant., XVII, ix, 4 f; BJ, II, ii, 3), he contested the will of Herod, who had given to the other the major part of the dominion. Rome, however, sustained the will and assigned to him the "tetrarchy" of Galilee and Peraea, as it had been set apart for him by Herod (Ant., XVII, xi, 4). Educated at Rome with Archelaus and Philip, his half-brother, son of Mariamne, daughter of Simon, he imbibed many of the tastes and graces and far more of the vices of the Romans. His first wife was a daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia. But he sent her back to her father at Petra, for the sake of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, whom he had met and seduced at Rome. Since the latter was the daughter of Aristobulus, his half-brother, and therefore his niece, and at the same time the wife of another half-brother, the union between her and Antipas was doubly sinful. Aretas repaid this insult to his daughter by a destructive war (Ant., XVIII, v, 1). Herodias had a baneful influence over him and wholly dominated his life (Mt 14:3-10). He emulated the example of his father in a mania for erecting buildings and beautifying cities. Thus, he built the wall of Sepphoris and made the place his capital. He elevated Bethsaida to the rank of a city and gave it the name "Julia," after the daughter of Tiberius. Another example of this inherited or cultivated building-mania was the work he did at Betharamphtha, which he called "Julias" (Ant., XVIII, ii, 1). His influence on his subjects was morally bad (Mk 8:15). If his life was less marked by enormities than his father's, it was only so by reason of its inevitable restrictions. The last glimpse the Gospels afford of him shows him to us in the final tragedy of the life of Christ. He is then at Jerusalem. Pilate in his perplexity had sent the Saviour bound to Herod, and the utter inefficiency and flippancy of the man is revealed in the account the Gospels give us of the incident (Lk 23:7-12; Acts 4:27). It served, however, to bridge the chasm of the enmity between Herod and Pilate (Lk 23:12), both of whom were to be stripped of their power and to die in shameful exile. When Caius Caligula had become emperor and when his scheming favorite Herod Agrippa I, the bitter enemy of Antipas, had been made king in 37 AD, Herodias prevailed on Herod Antipas to accompany her to Rome to demand a similar favor. The machinations of Agrippa and the accusation of high treason preferred against him, however, proved his undoing, and he was banished to Lyons in Gaul, where he died in great misery (Ant., XVIII, vii, 2; BJ, II, ix, 6).
Herod Philip was the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem. At the death of his father he inherited Gaulonitis, Traehonitis and Paneas (Ant., XVII, viii, 1). He was Philip apparently utterly unlike the rest of the Herodian family, retiring, dignified, moderate and just. He was also wholly free from the intriguing spirit of his brothers, and it is but fair to suppose that he inherited this totally un-Herodian character and disposition from his mother. He died in the year 34 AD, and his territory was given three years later to Agrippa I, his nephew and the son of Aristobulus, together with the tetrarchy of Lysanias (Ant., XVIII, iv, 6; XIX, v, 1).
Herod Archelaus was the oldest son of Herod the Great by Malthace, the Samaritan. He was a man of violent temper, reminding one a great deal of his father. Educated like all Archelaus the Herodian princes at Rome, he was fully familiar with the life and arbitrariness of the Roman court. In the last days of his father's life, Antipater, who evidently aimed at the extermination of all the heirs to the throne, accused him and Philip, his half-brother, of treason. Both were acquitted (Ant., XVI, iv, 4; XVII, vii, 1). By the will of his father, the greater part of the Herodian kingdom fell to his share, with the title of "ethnarch." The will was contested by his brother Antipas before the Roman court. While the matter was in abeyance, Archelaus incurred the hatred of the Jews by the forcible repression of a rebellion, in which some 3,000 people were slain. They therefore opposed his claims at Rome, but Arche1aus, in the face of all this opposition, received the Roman support (Ant., XVII, xi, 4). It is very ingeniously suggested that this episode may be the foundation of the parable of Christ, found in Lk 19:12-27. Archelaus, once invested with the government of Judea, ruled with a hard hand, so that Judea and Samaria were both soon in a chronic state of unrest. The two nations, bitterly as they hated each other, became friends in this common crisis, and sent an embassy to Rome to complain of the conduct of Archelaus, and this time they were successful. Archelaus was warned by a dream of the coming disaster, whereupon he went at once to Rome to defend himself, but wholly in vain. His government was taken from him, his possessions were all confiscated by the Roman power and he himself was banished to Vienna in Gaul (Ant., XVII, xiii, 2, 3). He, too, displayed some of his father's taste for architecture, in the building of a royal palace at Jericho and of a village, named after himself, Archelais. He was married first to Mariamne, and after his divorce from her to Glaphyra, who had been the wife of his half-brother Alexander (Ant., XVII, xiii). The only mention made of him in the Gospels is found in Mt 2:22.
Of Herod, son of Herod the Great and Mariamne, Simon's daughter, we know nothing except that he married Herodias, the daughter of his dead halfbrother Aristobulus. He is called Philip in the New Testament (Mt 14:3), and it was from him that Antipas lured Herodias away. His later history is wholly unknown, as well as that of Herod, the brother of Philip the tetrarch, and the oldest son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem.
Two members of the Herodian family are named Agrippa. They are of the line of Aristobulus, who through Mariamne, grand-daughter of Hyrcanus, carried down the line of the Asmonean blood. And it is worthy of note that in this line, nearly extinguished by Herod through his mad jealousy and fear of the Maccabean power, the kingdom of Herod came to its greatest glory again.
Herod Agrippa I, called Agrippa by Josephus, was the son of Aristobulus and Bernice and the grandson of Herod the Great and Mariamne. Educated at Rome with Claudius (Ant., XVIII, vi, 1, 4), he was possessed of great shrewdness and tact. Returning to Judea for a little while, he came back to Rome in 37 AD. He hated his uncle Antipas and left no stone unturned to hurt his cause. His mind was far-seeing, and he cultivated, as his grandfather had done, every means that might lead to his own promotion. He, therefore, made fast friends with Caius Caligula, heir presumptive to the Roman throne, and his rather outspoken advocacy of the latter's claims led to his imprisonment by Tiberius. This proved the making of his fortune, for Caligula did not forget him, but immediately on his accession to the throne, liberated Agrippa and bestowed on him, who up to that time had been merely a private citizen, the "tetrarchies" of Philip, his uncle, and of Lysanias, with the title of king, although he did not come into the possession of the latter till two more years had gone by (Ant., XVIII, vi, 10). The foolish ambition of Herod Antipas led to his undoing, and the emperor, who had heeded the accusation of Agrippa against his uncle, bestowed on him the additional territory of Galilee and Peraea in 39 AD. Agrippa kept in close touch with the imperial government, and when, on the assassination of Caligula, the imperial crown was offered to the indifferent Claudius, it fell to the lot of Agrippa to lead the latter to accept the proffered honor. This led to further imperial favors and further extension of his territory, Judea and Samaria being added to his domain, 40 AD. The fondest dreams of Agrippa had now been realized, his father's fate was avenged and the old Herodian power had been restored to its original extent. He ruled with great munificence and was very tactful in his contact with the Jews. With this end in view, several years before, he had moved Caligula to recall the command of erecting an imperial statue in the city of Jerusalem; and when he was forced to take sides in the struggle between Judaism and the nascent Christian sect, he did not hesitate a moment, but assumed the role of its bitter persecutor, slaying James the apostle with the sword and harrying the church whenever possible (Acts 12.). He died, in the full flush of his power, of a death, which, in its harrowing details reminds us of the fate of his grandfather (Acts 12:20-23; Ant, XIX, viii, 2). Of the four children he left (BJ, II, xi, 6), three are known to history--Herod Agrippa II, king of Calchis, Bernice of immoral celebrity, who consorted with her own brother in defiance of human and Divine law, and became a byword even among the heathen (Juv. Sat. vi. 156-60), and Drusilla, the wife of the Roman governor Felix (Acts 24:24). According to tradition the latter perished in the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD, together with her son Agrippa. With Herod Agrippa I, the Herodian power had virtually run its course.
Herod Agrippa II was the son of Herod Agrippa I and Cypros. When his father died in 44 AD he was a youth of only 17 years and considered too young to assume the government of Judea. Claudius therefore placed the country under the care of a procurator. Agrippa had received a royal education in the palace of the emperor himself (Ant., XIX, ix, 2). But he had not wholly forgotten his people, as is proven by his intercession in behalf of the Jews, when they asked to be permitted to have the custody of the official highpriestly robes, till then in the hands of the Romans and to be used only on stated occasions (Ant., XX, i, 1). On the death of his uncle, Herod of Calchis, Claudius made Agrippa II "tetrarch" of the territory, 48 AD (BJ, II, xii, 1; XIV, iv; Ant, XX, v, 2). As Josephus tells us, he espoused the cause of the Jews whenever he could (Ant., XX, vi, 3). Four years later (52 AD), Claudius extended the dominion of Agrippa by giving him the old "tetrarchies" of Philip and Lysanias. Even at Calchis they had called him king; now it became his official title (Ant., XX, vii, 1). Still later (55 AD), Nero added some Galilean and Perean cities to his domain. His whole career indicates the predominating influence of the Asmonean blood, which had shown itself in his father's career also. If the Herodian taste for architecture reveals itself here and there (Ant., XX, viii, 11; IX, iv), there is a total absence of the cold disdain wherewith the Herods in general treated their subjects. The Agrippas are Jews.
Herod Agrippa II figures in the New Testament in Acts 25:13; 26:32. Paul there calls him "king" and appeals to him as to one knowing the Scriptures. As the brother-in-law of Felix he was a favored guest on this occasion. His relation to Bernice his sister was a scandal among Jews and Gentiles alike (Ant., XX, vii, 3). In the fall of the Jewish nation, Herod Agrippa's kingdom went down. Knowing the futility of resistance, Agrippa warned the Jews not to rebel against Rome, but in vain (BJ, II, xvi, 2-5; XVII, iv; XVIII, ix; XIX, iii). When the war began he boldly sided with Rome and fought under its banners, getting wounded by a sling-stone in the siege of Gamala (BJ, IV, i, 3). The oration by which he sought to persuade the Jews against the rebellion is a masterpiece of its kind and became historical (BJ, II, xvi). When the inevitable came and when with the Jewish nation also the kingdom of Herod Agrippa II had been destroyed, the Romans remembered his loyalty. With Bernice his sister he removed to Rome, where he became a praetor and died in the year 100 AD, at the age of 70 years, in the beginning of Trajan's reign.
LITERATURE.
Josephus, Josephus, Antiquities and BJ; Strabo; Dio Cassius. Among all modern works on the subject, Schurer, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (5 vols) is perhaps still the best.
Henry E. Dosker
he-ro'-di-anz (Herodianoi): A party twice mentioned in the Gospels (Mt 22:16 parallel Mk 12:13; 3:6) as acting with the Pharisees in opposition to Jesus. They were not a religious sect, but, as the name implies, a court or political party, supporters of the dynasty of Herod. Nothing is known of them beyond what the Gospels state. Whatever their political aims, they early perceived that Christ's pure and spiritual teaching on the kingdom of God was irreconcilable with these, and that Christ's influence with the people was antagonistic to their interests. Hence, in Galilee, on the occasion of the healing of the man with the withered hand, they readily joined with the more powerful party of the Pharisees in plots to crush Jesus (Mk 3:6); and again, in Jerusalem, in the last week of Christ's life, they renewed this alliance in the attempt to entrap Jesus on the question of the tribute money (Mt 22:16). The warning of Jesus to His disciples to "beware of the leaven of Herod" (Mk 8:15) may have had reference to the insidious spirit of this party.
James Orr
he-ro'-di-as (Herodias): The woman who compassed the death of John the Baptist at Macherus (Mt 14:1-12; Mk 6:14-29; compare also Lk 3:19,20; 9:7-9). According to the Gospel records, Herodias had previously been married to Philip, but had deserted him for his brother Herod the tetrarch. For this Herod was reproved by John (compare Lev 18:16; 20:21), and Herod, therefore, to please Herodias, bound him and cast him into prison. According to Mt 14:5 he would even then have put John to death, but "feared the multitude," which regarded John as a prophet. But Mk 6:19 f relates it was Herodias who especially desired the death of John, but that she was withstood by Herod whose conscience was not altogether dead. This latter explanation is more in harmony with the sequel. At Herod's birthday feast, Herodias induced her daughter Salome, whose dancing had so charmed the tetrarch, to ask as her reward the head of John the Baptist on a charger. This was given her and she then brought it to her mother.
Herodias was daughter of Aristobulus, son of Herod the Great, by Mariamne, daughter of Hyrcanus. Her second husband (compare above) was Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea (circa 4-39AD ), son of Herod the Great by Malthace. Herod Antipus was thus the step-brother of Aristobulus, father of Herodias. Regarding the first husband of Herodias, to whom she bore Salome, some hold that the Gospel accounts are at variance with that of Josephus. In Mt 14:3; Mk 6:17; Lk 3:19, he is called Philip the brother of Herod (Antipus). But in Mt 14:3 and Lk 3:19 the name Philip is omitted by certain important manuscripts. According to Josephus, he was Herod, son of Herod the Great by Mariamne daughter of Simon the high priest, and was thus a step-brother of Herod Antipas (compare Josephus, Ant,XVIII , v, 4). It is suggested in explanation of the discrepancy (1) that Herod, son of Mariamne, bore a second name Philip, or (2) that there is confusion in the Gospels with Heroal-Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitis, who was the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra, and who was in reality the husband of Salome, daughter of Herodias (compare also A. B. Bruce, The Expositor Greek Testament., I, 381; A. C. Headlam, article "Herod" in HDB, II, 359, 360). According to Josephus (Ant., VIII, vii, 2; XVIII, vii, 1) the ambition of Herodias proved the ruin of Herod Antipas. Being jealous of the power of Agrippa her brother, she induced Herod to demand of Caligula the title of king. This was refused through the machinations of Agrippa, and Herod was banished. But the pride of Herodias kept her still faithful to her husband in his misfortune.
C. M. Kerr
he-ro'-di-on (Herodion; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek Hrodion): A Roman Christian to whom Paul sent greetings (Rom 16:11). The name seems to imply that he was a freedman of the Herods, or a member of the household of Aristobulus, the grandson of Herod the Great (Rom 16:10). Paul calls him "my kinsman," i.e. "a Jew" (see JUNIAS , 1).
her'-un ('anaphah; charadrios; Latin Ardea cinerea): Herons are mentioned only in the abomination lists of Lev 11:19 (margin "ibis") and Dt 14:18. They are near relatives of crane, stork, ibis and bittern. These birds, blue, white or brown, swarmed in Europe and wintered around Merom, along the Jordan, at the headwaters of the Jabbok and along its marshy bed in the dry season. Herons of Southern Africa that summered in the Holy Land loved to nest on the banks of Merom, and raise their young among the bulrushes, papyrus, reeds and water grasses, although it is their usual habit to build in large trees. The white herons were small, the blue, larger, and the brown, close to the same size. The blue were 3 1/2 ft. in length, and had a 5-ft. sweep. The beak, neck and legs constituted two-thirds of the length of the body, which is small, lean and bony, taking its appearance of size from its long loose feathers. Moses no doubt forbade these birds as an article of diet, because they ate fish and in older specimens would be tough, dark and evil smelling. The very poor of our western and southeastern coast states eat them.
Gene Stratton-Porter
he'-sed.
See BEN-HESED .
hesh'-bon (cheshbon; Hesebon): The royal city of Sihon king of the Amorites, taken and occupied by the Israelites under Moses (Nu 21:25 f, etc.). It lay on the southern border of Gad (Josh 13:26), and was one of the cities fortified by Reuben (Nu 32:37). It is reckoned among the cities of Gad given to the Merarite Levites (Josh 21:39). In later literature (Isa 15:4; 16:8 f; Jer 48:2,34,45; 49:3) it is referred to as a city of Moab. It passed again into Jewish hands, and is mentioned by Josephus (Ant., XIII, xv, 4) as among their possessions in the country of Moab under Alexander Janneus. The city with its district called Hesebonitis, was also under the jurisdiction of Herod the Great (Ant., XV, vii, 5, where it is described as lying in the Peraea). Eusebius, Onomasticon places it 20 Roman miles from the Jordan. It is represented by the modern Chesban, a ruined site in the mountains over against Jericho, about 16 miles East of the Jordan. It stands on the edge of Wady Chesban in a position of great strength, about 600 ft. above `Ain Chesban. The ruins, dating mainly from Roman times, spread over two hills, respectively 2,930 ft. and 2,954 ft. in height. There are remains of a temple overlooked from the West by those of a castle. There is also a large ruined reservoir; while the spring in the valley forms a succession of pools (Song 7:4). The city is approached from the valley by a steep path passing through a cutting in the rock, which may have been closed by a gate (Conder, Heth and Moab, 142). On a hill to the West, el-Kurmiyeh, is a collection of dolmens and stone circles (Musil, Arabia Petrea, I, 383 ff).
W. Ewing
hesh'-mon (cheshmon): An unidentified place on the border of Judah toward Edom (Josh 15:27). This may have been the original home of the Hasmoneans.
chath cheth: The eighth letter of the Hebrew alphabet; transliterated in this Encyclopedia as "ch". It came also to be used for the number 8. For name, etc., see ALPHABET .
heth (cheth): In Gen 23:10 the ancestor of the Hittites. As the various peoples who occupied Canaan were thought to belong to one stock, Gen 10:15 (1 Ch 1:13) makes Heth the (2nd) son of Canaan. In Gen 23 the "sons of Heth" occupy Hebron, but they were known to have come there from the north. A reference to this seems to be preserved in the order of the names in Gen 10:15,16, where Heth is placed between Sidon and the Jebusites.
See HITTITES .
heth'-lon (chethlon; Peshitta chethron): Name of a place associated with Zedad on the ideal northern boundary of Israel, as given in Ezek 47:15 and 48:1, but not named in Nu 34:8, while the Septuagint evidently translated the text it had. In accordance with the opinion they hold as to the boundary line of Northern Israel, van Kasteren and Buhl seek to identify Hethlon with 'Adlun on the river Qasmiyeh. Much more in harmony with the line of the other border towns given is its identification with Heitala to the Northeast of Tripoli. The "way of Hethlon" would then coincide with the Eleutherus valley, between Homs and the Mediterranean, through which the railway now runs, and to this identification the Septuagint seems to give testimony, indicating some path of "descent" from the Biqa'a.
W. M. Christie
hu'-er (choTebh): Applies especially to a wood-worker or wood-gatherer (compare Arabic chattab, "a woodman") (Josh 9:21,23,17; 2 Ch 2:10; Jer 46:22). Gathering wood, like drawing water, was a menial task. Special servants were assigned to the work (Dt 29:11). Joshua set the Gibeonites to hewing wood and drawing water as a punishment for their trickery, whereas were it not for the oath which the Israelites had sworn, the Gibeonites would probably have been killed.
See DRAWER OF WATER .
chatsbh, from the root "to cut" or "to carve," applies to hewers of stone in 1 Ki 5:15; 2 Ki 12:12; 1 Ch 22:15; 2 Ch 2:18.
James A. Patch
hek'-sa-tuk:
This word, formed on the analogy of Pentateuch, Heptateuch, etc., is used by modern writers to denote the first six books of the Bible (i.e. the Law and Joshua) collectively. Many critics hold that these six books were composed out of the sources JEP, etc. (on which see PENTATEUCH ), and only separated very much later into different works. The main grounds for this belief are: (1) the obvious fact that Josh provides the sequel to the Pentateuch, narrating the conquest and settlement in Canaan to which the latter work looks forward, and (2) certain material and stylistic resemblances. The composition of the respective works is considered in the articles PENTATEUCH and JOSHUA.
Here we must glance at the evidence against theory of a Hexateuch. It is admitted that there is no trace of any such work as the Hexateuch anywhere in tradition. The Jewish Canon places the Pentateuch in a separate category from Joshua. The Samaritans went farther and adopted the Pentateuch alone. The orthography of the two works differs in certain important particulars (see E. Konig, Einleitung, 151 f, 250). Hence, a different literary history has to be postulated for the two works, even by those who adopt theory of a Hexateuch. But that theory is open to objection on other grounds. There are grave differences of opinion among its supporters as to whether all the supposed Pentateuchal documents are present in Joshua, and in any case it is held that they are quite differently worked up, the redactors having proceeded on one system in the Pentateuch and on quite another in Joshua. Arguments are given in the article PENTATEUCH to show the presence of Mosaic and pre-Mosaic elements in the Pentateuch and the unsoundness of the documentary theory in that work, and if these be correct theory of a Hexateuch necessarily falls to the ground.
For Bibliography see PENTATEUCH ;JOSHUA .
Harold M. Wiener
hez'-e-ki (chizqi).
See HIZKI .
hez-e-ki'-a (chizqiyah):
(1) King of Judah. See special article
(2) A son of Neariah, of the royal family of Judah (1 Ch 3:23, the Revised Version (British and American) "Hizkiah").
(3) An ancestor of Zephaniah (Zeph 1:1, the King James Version "Hizkiah").
(4) One of the returned exiles from Babylon (Ezr 2:16; Neh 7:21).
(chizqiyah, "Yahweh has strengthened"; also written chizqiyahu, "Yah has strengthened him"; Hezekias): One of the greatest of the kings of Judah; reigned (according to the most self-consistent chronology) from circa 715 to circa 690 BC.
Old Testament Estimate:
On the Old Testament standard of loyalty to Yahweh he is eulogized by Jesus Sirach as one of the three kings who alone did not "commit trespass" (Sirach 49:4), the other two being David and Josiah. The Chronicler represents him (2 Ch 32:31) as lapsing from the wisdom of piety only by his vainglory in revealing the resources of his realm to the envoys of Merodach-baladan. In 2 Ki 18:5, the earliest estimate, his special distinction, beyond all other Judean kings, before or after, was that he "trusted in Yahweh, the God of Israel." It is as the king who "clave to Yahweh" (2 Ki 18:6) that the Hebrew mind sums up his royal and personal character.
I. Sources for His Life and Times.
The historical accounts in 2 Ki 18-20 and 2 Ch 29-32 are derived in the main from the same state annals, though the latter seems also to have had the Temple archives to draw upon. For "the rest of his acts" 2 Ki refers to a source then still in existence but now lost, "the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah" (2 Ki 20:20), and 2 Chronicles to "the vision of Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz, in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel" (2 Ch 32:32). In this last-named source (if this is the original of our Book of Isa.), besides the warnings and directions called out by the course of the history, there is a narrative section (Isa 36-39) recounting the Sennacherib crisis much as do the other histories, but incorporating also a passage of Isaianic prophecy (Isa 37:22-32) and a "writing of Hezekiah king of Judah" (Isa 38:10-20). Lastly, in Sirach 48:17-25, there is a summary of the good and wise deeds of Hezekiah, drawn from the accounts that we already have.
Of these sources the account in 2 Kings is most purely historianic, originating at a time when religious and political values, in the Hebrew mind, were inseparable. In 2 Ch the religious point and coloring, especially in its later developed ritual and legal aspects, has the decided predominance. Sirach, with the mind of a man of letters, is concerned mainly with eulogizing Hezekiah. in his "praise of famous men" (compare Sirach 44 through 50), of course from the devout Hebrew point of view. In the vision of Isaiah (Isa 1 through 39), we have the reflection of the moral and spiritual situation in Jerusalem, as realized in the fervid prophetic consciousness; and in the prophecy of his younger contemporary Micah, the state of things in the outlying country districts nearest the path of invasion, where both the iniquities of the ruling classes and the horrors of war were felt most keenly. Doubtless also many devotional echoes of these times of stress are deducible from the Psalms, so far as we can fairly identify them.
It is in Hezekiah's times especially that the Assyrian inscriptions become illuminating for the history of Israel; for one important thing they furnish certain fixed dates to which the chronology of the times can be adjusted. Of Sennacherib's campaign of 701, for instance, no fewer than six accounts are at present known (see G.A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 154, note), the most detailed being the "Taylor Cylinder," now in the British Museum, which in the main agrees, or at least is not inconsistent, with the Scripture history.
From his weak and unprincipled father Ahaz (compare 2 Ch 28:16-25), Hezekiah inherited not only a disorganized realm but a grievous burden of Assyrian dominance and tribute, and the constant peril and suspense of greater encroachments from that arrogant and arbitrary power: the state of things foretold in Isa 7:20; 8:7 f. The situation was aggravated by the fact that not only the nation's weakness but its spiritual propensities had incurred it: the dominant classes were aping the sentiments, fashions and cult of the East (compare Isa 2:6-8), while the neglected common people were exposed to the corruptions of the still surviving heathenism of the land. The realm, in short, was at the spiritual nadir-point from which prophets like Isaiah and Micah were laboring to bring about the birth of a true Hebrew conscience and faith. Their task was a hard one: with a nation smear-eyed, dull-cared, fat-hearted (Isa 6:10), whose religion was a precept of men learned by rote (Isa 29:13). Clearly, from this point of view, a most difficult career was before him.
The sense of this unspiritual state of things furnishes the best keynote of Hezekiah's reforms in religion, which according to the Chronicler he set about as soon as he came to the throne (2 Ch 29:3). It is the Chronicler who gives the fullest account of these reforms (2 Ch 29 through 31); naturally, from his priestly point of view and access to ecclesiastical archives. Hezekiah began with the most pressing constructive need, the opening and cleansing of the Temple, which his father Ahaz had left closed and desecrated (2 Ch 28:24), and went on to the reorganization of its liturgical and choral service. In connection with this work he appointed a Passover observance, which, on a scale and spirit unknown since Solomon (2 Ch 30:26), he designed as a religious reunion of the devout-minded in all Israel, open not only to Jerusalem and Judah, but to all who would accept his invitation from Samaria, Galilee, and beyond the Jordan (2 Ch 30:5-12,18). The immediate result of the enthusiasm engendered by this Old Home Week was a vigorous popular movement of iconoclasm against the idolatrous high places of the land. That this was no weak fanatical impulse to break something, but a touch of real spiritual quickening, seems evidenced by one incident of it: the breaking up of Moses' old brazen serpent and calling it what it had come to mean, nechushtan, "a piece of brass" (2 Ki 18:4); the movement seems in fact to have had in it the sense, however crude, that old religious forms had become hurtful and effete superstitions, hindering spirituality. Nor could the movement stop with the old fetish. With it went the demolition of the high places themselves and the breaking down of the pillars (matstsebhoth) and felling of the sacred groves ('asherah), main symbols these of a debasing naturecult. This reform, on account of later reactions (see underMANASSEH ), has been deemed ineffective; rather, its effects were inward and germinal; nor were they less outwardly than could reasonably be expected, before its meanings were more deepened and centralized.
All this, on the king's part, was his response to the spiritual influence of Isaiah, with whose mind his own was sincerely at one. As a devout disciple in the school of prophetic ideas, he earnestly desired to maintain the prophet's insistent attitude of "quietness and confidence" (compare Isa 30:15), that is, of stedfast trust in Yahweh alone, and of abstinence from revolt and entangling alliances with foreign powers. This, however, in the stress and suspense of the times, did not preclude a quiet preparation for emergencies; and doubtless the early years of his reign were notable, not only for mild and just administration throughout his realm, but for measures looking to the fortifying and defense of the capital. His work of repairing and extending the walls and of strengthening the citadel (Millo), as mentioned in 2 Ch 32:5, had probably been in progress long before the Assyrian crisis was imminent. Nor was he backward in coming to an understanding with other nations, as to the outlook for revolt against Assyria. He could not learn his lesson of faith all at once, especially with a factious court pulling the other way. He did not escape the suspicion of Sargon (died 705), who for his Egyptian leanings counted him among the "plotters of sedition" (compare COT , 100); while the increasing prosperity and strength of his realm marked him for a leading role in an eventual uprising. He weathered at least one chance of rebellion, however, in 711, probably through the strenuous exertions of Isaiah (see Isa 20:1 ff).
Hezekiah's opportunity to rise against Assyrian domination seems to have been taken about 704. How so pious a king came to do it in spite of Isaiah's strenuous warnings, both against opposition to Assyria and alliance with other powers, is not very clear. The present writer ventures to suggest the view that the beginning was forced or perhaps sprung upon him by his princes and nobles. In the year before, Sargon, dying, had left his throne to Sennacherib, and, as at all ancient changes of sovereignty, this was the signal for a general effort for independence on the part of subject provinces. That was also the year of Hezekiah's deadly illness (2 Ki 20; Isa 38), when for a time we know not how long he would be incapacitated for active administration of affairs. Not unlikely on his recovery he found his realm committed beyond withdrawal to an alliance with Egypt and perhaps the leadership of a coalition with Philistia; in which case personally he could only make the best of the situation. There was nothing for it but to confirm this coalition by force, which he did in his Philistine campaign mentioned in 2 Ki 18:8. Meanwhile, in the same general uprising, the Chaldean Merodach-baladan, who had already been expelled from Babylon after an 11-year reign (721-710), again seized that throne; and in due time envoys from him appeared in Jerusalem, ostensibly to congratulate the king on his recovery from his illness, but really to secure his aid and alliance against Assyria (2 Ki 20:12-15; Isa 39:1-4). Hezekiah, flattered by such distinguished attention from so distant and powerful a source, by revealing his resources committed what the Chronicler calls the one impious indiscretion of his life (2 Ch 32:31), incurring also Isaiah's reproof and adverse prediction (2 Ki 20:17 f; Isa 39:6 f). The conflict with Sennacherib was now inevitable; and Hezekiah, by turning the water supply of Jerusalem from the Gihon spring to a pool within the walls and closing it from without, put the capital in readiness to stand a siege. The faith evoked by this wise work, confirmed by the subsequent deliverance, is reflected in Ps 46. That this incurring of a hazardous war, however, with its turmoils and treacheries, and the presence of uncouth Arab mercenaries, was little to the king's desire or disposition, seems indicated in Ps 120, which with the other Songs of Degrees (Pss 120 through 134) may well reflect the religious faith of this period of Hezekiah's life.
The critical moment came in 701, when Sennacherib, who the year before had reconquered Babylon and expelled Merodach-baladan (perhaps Isa 21:1-9 refers to and this), was free to invade his rebellious provinces in the West. It was a vigorous and sweeping campaign; in which, beginning with Sidon and advancing down
through the coast lands, he speedily subdued the Philistine cities, defeating them and their southern allies (whether these were from Egypt proper or from its extension across the Sinai peninsula and Northern Arabia, Mutsri, is not quite clear) at Eltekeh; in which campaign, according to his inscription, he took 46 walled towns belonging to Judah with their spoil and deported over 200,000 of their inhabitants. This, which left Jerusalem a blockaded town (in fact he says of Hezekiah: "Himself I shut up like a bird in a cage in Jerusalem his royal city"), seems referred to in Isa 1:7-9 and predicted in Isa 6:11 f. Its immediate effect was to bring Hezekiah to terms and extort an enormous tribute (2 Ki 18:14-16). When later, however, he was treacherous enough to disregard the compact thus implied (perhaps Isa 33 refers to this), and demanded the surrender of the city (2 Ki 18:17 through 19:7; Isa 36:2 through 37:7), Hezekiah besought the counsel of Isaiah, who bade him refuse the demand, and predicted that Sennacherib would "hear tidings" and return to his own land; which prediction actually came to pass, and suddenly Hezekiah found himself free. A deliverance so great, and so signally vindicating the setting forth of faith, could not but produce a momentous revulsion in the nation's mind, like a new spiritual birth in which the faith of the "remnant" became a vital power in Israel; its immediate effect seems portrayed in Ps 124 and perhaps Ps 126, and its deep significance as the birth of a nation in a day seems summarized long afterward in Isa 66:7 through 9; compare 37:3; 2 Ki 19:3.
A second summons to surrender, sent from Libnah by letter (2 Ki 19:1 ff; Isa 37:8 ff), is treated by the Scripture historians as a later feature of the same campaign; but recent researches seem to make it possible, nay probable, that this belonged to another campaign of Sennacherib, when Taharka of Ethiopia (Tirhakah, 2 Ki 19:9; Isa 37:9) came to power in Egypt, in 691. If this was so, there is room in Hezekiah's latter years for a decade of peace and prosperity (compare Ch 32:22,23,27-30), and in Isaiah's old age for a collection and revision of his so wonderfully vindicated prophecies. The historians' evident union of two stories in one makes the new attitude with which this crisis was met, obscure; but the tone of confirmed confidence and courage seems decidedly higher. The discomfiture of Sennacherib in this case was brought about, not by a rumor of rebellions at home, but by an outbreak of plague (2 Ki 19:35 f; Isa 37:36 f), which event the Scripture writers interpreted as a miracle. The prophetic sign of deliverance (2 Ki 19:29; Isa 37:30) may be referred to the recovery of the devastated lands from the ravage inflicted by Sennacherib in his first campaign (compare also Ps 126:5 f).
Our estimate of Hezekiah's character is most consistently made by regarding him as a disciple of Isaiah, who was earnestly minded to carry out his prophetic ideas. As, however, these were to begin with only the initial ideas of a spiritual "remnant," the king's sympathies must needs be identified at heart, not with his imperious nobles and princes, but with a minority of the common people, whose religious faith did not become a recognizable influence in the state until after 701. In the meantime his zeal for purer worship and more just domestic administration, which made him virtually king of the remnant, made him a wise and sagacious prince over the whole realm. Isaiah's glowing prophecy (32:1-8) seems to be a Messianic projection of the saner and clearer-seeing era that his domestic policy adumbrated--a time when king and nobles rule in righteousness, when man can lean on man, when things good and evil are seen as they are and called by their right names. When it came to dealing with the foreign situation, however, especially according to the Isaianic program, his task was exceedingly difficult, as it were a pioneer venture in faith. His effort to maintain an attitude of steadfast trust in Yahweh, with the devout quietism which, though really its consistency and strength looked like a supine passivity, would lead his restlessly scheming nobles to regard him as a pious weakling; and not improbably they came to deem him almost a negligible quantity, and forced his hand into diplomacies and coalitions that were not to his mind. Some such insolent attitude of theirs seems to be portrayed in Isa 28:14-22. This was rendered all the more feasible, perhaps, by the period of incapacitation that must have attended his illness, in the very midst of the nation's critical affairs. Isaiah's words (33:17 ff) may be an allusion at once to his essential kingliness, to the abeyance of its manifestation due to his disease, and to the constricted condition into which, meanwhile, the realm had fallen. This exceedingly critical episode of Hezekiah's career does not seem to have had its rights with students of the era. Considering the trials that his patient faith must have had, always at cross-purposes with his nobles (compare Ps 120:6 f); that now by reason of his sickness they had the whip hand; that his disease cut him off not only from hope of life, but from association with men and access to the sanctuary (compare Isa 38:10,11,12); that, as his son Manasseh was not born till three years within the fifteen now graciously added to his life (compare 2 Ki 21:1), his illness seemed to endanger the very perpetuity of the Davidic dynasty, we have reason for regarding him as well-nigh a martyr to the new spiritual uprising of faith which Isaiah was laboring to bring about. In the Messianic ideal which, in Isaiah's sublime conception, was rising into personal form, it fell to his lot to adumbrate the first kingly stage, the stage of committal to Yahweh's word and will and abiding the event. It was a cardinal element in that composite ideal which the Second Isaiah pushes to its ultimate in his portrayal of the servant of Yahweh; another element, the element of sacrifice, has yet to be added. Meanwhile, as with the king so with his remnant-realm, the venture of faith is like a precipitation of spiritual vitality, or, as the prophet puts it, a new birth (compare Isa 26:17 f; 37:3; 66:7 f, for the stages of it). The event of deliverance, not by men's policies but by Yahweh's miraculous hand, was the speedy vindication of such trust; and the revulsion of the next decade witnessed a confirming and solidifying of spiritual integrity in the remnant which made it a factor to be reckoned with in the trying times that succeeded (see underMANASSEH ). The date of Hezekiah's death (probably not long after 690) is not certainly known; nor of the death of his mentor Isaiah (tradition puts this by martyrdom under Manasseh); but if our view of his closing years is correct, the king's death crowned a consistent character of strength and spiritual steadfastness; while the unapproachable greatness of Isaiah speaks for itself.
IV. Reflection of His Age in Literature.
The sublime and mature utterances of Isaiah alone, falling in this time, are sufficient evidence that in Hezekiah's age, Israel reached its golden literary prime. Among the idealists and thinkers throughout the nation a new spiritual vigor and insight were awake. Of their fellowship was the king himself, who emulated the activity of his predecessor Solomon as patron of piety and letters. The compilation of the later Solomonic section of the Proverbs (Prov 25 through 29), attributed to the "men of Hezekiah," indicates the value attached to the accumulations of the so-called Wisdom literature; and it is fair to assume that these men of Hezekiah did not stop with compiling, but stamped upon the body of Proverbs as a whole that sense of it as a philosophy of life which it henceforth bears, and perhaps added the introductory section, Prov 1 through 9. Nor would a king so zealous for the organization and enrichment of the temple-worship (compare Isa 38:20) be indifferent to its body of sacred song. It seems certain that his was, in all the nation's history, the greatest single agency in compiling and adapting the older Davidic Psalms, and in the composition of new ones. Perhaps this union of collecting and creative work in psalmody is referred to in the mention of "the words of David, and of Asaph the seer" (2 Ch 29:30). To Hezekiah himself is attributed one "writing" which is virtually a psalm, Isa 38:20. The custom through all the history of hymnology (in our own day also) of adapting older compositions to new liturgical uses makes uncertain the identification of psalms belonging specifically to this period; still, many psalms of books ii and iii, and especially those ascribed to Asaph and the sons of Korah, seem a close reflection of the spirit of the times. An interesting theory recently advanced (see THIRTLE , Old Testament Problems) that the fifteen Songs of the Steps ("Degrees" or "Ascents," Psalms 120 through 134) are a memorial of Hezekiah's fifteen added years, when as a sign the shadow went backward on the steps of Ahaz (2 Ki 20:8-11), seems to reveal many remarkable echoes of that eventful time. Nor does it seem unlikely that with this first extensive collection of psalms the titles began to be added.
This literary activity of Hezekiah's time, though concerned largely with collecting and reviving the treasures of older literature, was pursued not in the cold scribal spirit, but in a fervid creative way. This may be realized in two of the psalms which the present writer ascribes to this period. Ps 49, a psalm of the sons of Korah, is concerned to make an essential tenet of Wisdom viable in song (compare Ps 49:3,4), as if one of the "men of Hezekiah" who is busy with the Solomonic counsels would popularize the spirit of his findings. Ps 78 in like manner, a Maschil of Asaph, is concerned to make the noble histories of old viable in song (78:2), especially the wilderness history when Israel received the law and beheld Yahweh's wonders, and down to the time when Ephraim was rejected and Judah, in the person of David, was chosen to the leadership in Israel.
Such a didactic poem would not stand solitary in a period so instructed. As in Wisdom and psalmody, so in the domain of law and its attendant history, the literary activity was vigorous. This age of Hezekiah seems the likeliest time for putting into literary idiom that "book of the law" found later in the Temple (2 Ki 22); which book Josiah's reforms, carried out according to its commands, prove to have been our Book of Deuteronomy. This is not the place to discuss the Deuteronomic problem (see underJOSIAH ); it is fair to note here, however, that as compared with the austere statement of the Mosaic statutes elsewhere, this book has a literary art and coloring which seem to stamp its style as that of a later age than Moses', though its substance is Mosaic; and this age of Hezekiah seems the likeliest time to put its rewriting and adaptation. Nor did the new spirit of literary creation feed itself entirely on the past. The king's chastening experience of illness and trial, with the steadfast faith that upbore and survived it, must have been fruitful of new ideas, especially of that tremendous conception, now just entering into thought, of the ministry of suffering. Time, of course, must be allowed for the ripening of an idea so full of involvement; and it is long before its sacrificial and atoning values come to light in such utterances as Isa 53. But such psalms as Ps 49 and Ps 73, not to mention Hezekiah's own psalm (Isa 38), show that the problem was a living one; it was working, moreover, in connection with the growing Wisdom philosophy, toward the composition of the Book of Job, which in a masterly way both subjects the current Wisdom motives to a searching test and vindicates the intrinsic integrity of the patriarch in a discipline of most extreme trial. The life of a king whose experience had some share in clarifying the ideas of such a book was not lived in vain.
John Franklin Genung
See DIAL OF AHAZ .
A body of men of letters to whom is ascribed the compilation of a supplementary collection of Solomonic proverbs (Prov 25:1).
See PROVERBS ,THE BOOK OF ,II , 5;HEZEKIAH ,IV , 2.
he'-zi-on (chezyon; the Septuagint's Codex Vaticanus, Azein; Codex Alexandrinus, Azael): An ancestor of Ben-hadad, king of Syria (1 Ki 15:18).
he'-zer:
(1) (chezir; the Septuagint's Codex Vaticanus, Chezein; Codex Alexandrinus, Iezeir): A Levite in the time of David (1 Ch 24:15).
(2) Septuagint Hezeir): A chief of the people in the time of Nehemiah (Neh 10:20).
hez'-ro, hez'-ra-i, hez'-ri (chezro, 2 Sam 23:35; 1 Ch 11:37, but the Qere of 2 Sam 23:35 is chezray. The ancient versions almost unanimously support the form Hezrai): A Carmelite, i.e. an inhabitant of Carmel. See CARMELITE . One of David's thirty "mighty men."
hez'-ron (chetsron, and chetsron; Septuagint Asron):
(1) A son of Reuben (Gen 46:9; Ex 6:14), and head of the family of the Hezronites (Nu 26:6).
(2) A son of Perez, and grandson of Judah (Gen 46:12; Nu 26:21; 1 Ch 2:5,9,18,21,24,25; 4:1), a direct ancestor of David (Ruth 4:18 f). He appears also in the genealogy of our Lord (Esrom) (Mt 1:3; Lk 3:33).
(chetsron, "enclosure"): On the South boundary of Judah between "Kadesh-barnea" and "Addar" (Josh 15:3); in the parallel passage (Nu 34:4) "Hazar-addar." The two places may have been near together. Conder suggests that the name survives in Jebel Hadhireh, a mountain Northwest of Petra in the Tih.
hez'-ron-its (ha-chetsrowni and ha-chetsroni; Septuagint ho Asronei): The name of the descendants of Hezron the son of Reuben (Nu 26:6), and of the descendants of Hezron the son of Perez (Nu 26:21).