those parts of the epistle where his subject calls the writer to the utterance of reproof, warning, or exhortation, the language is equally ardent with that used in any analogous passages in the writings of Paul. This brings us to the closing part of Eichhorn's objection, which relates to the use in this epistle of a more rotund, elegant, and perspicuous style than we find usually in the epistles of Paul. Now it must be admitted here that this composition does partake much more of the character of a flowing, continuous discourse, than is found in the apostle's acknowledged productions. The question, however, is not, Whether Paul might not for some sufficient reason prefer attempting such a discourse in this particular case? a question which it would surely be absurd to discuss; but, Whether, supposing him to make the attempt, it is conceivable that he should succeed in it to the extent realized by the writer of this epistle? Eichhorn concludes in the negative; but on what grounds? Apparently on the grounds that the apostle's acknowledged writings present no specimens of such success; so that his argument is this: Supposing Paul to have attempted to write rhetorically, it is impossible he should have succeeded so well, because we find that, where he makes no such attempt, his style is far from being rhetorical! Of such reasoning we are content to say, Valeat quantum valere potest.' We may also hint that, in our opinion, there is no passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, imposing as it is, which might not have flowed from the same pen which composed the 8th chapter of Romans, and the 13th of 1st Corinthians.-3. Whilst we occasionally meet Pauline termini, we find precisely in the leading ideas of the epistle a terminology different from that of Paul' (Tholuck, i. 39, Eng. transl.). The instances specified by Dr. Tholuck are the use of iepeús, nohy, and anóσToxos, as designations of Christ; of duoAoyla, which he says is confined to this epistle; οἱ ἐγγίζειν τῷ θεῷ; and of τελειοῦν, with its derivatives in the sense in which it is used Heb. vii. 19. Now, with regard to this objection, it may be observed, 1st, That supposing all the instances adduced by Tholuck to be unimpeachable, and supposing no reason could be assigned why Paul should use such in writing to Hebrews, when he did not use them in writing to others, still the objection cannot have much weight with any person accustomed to weigh evidence, because not only is the number of Pauline termini found in this epistle far greater than the number of termini which, according to Tholuck, are foreign to the apostle to the Gentiles;' but it is always less likely that the peculiar phrases of a writer should be borrowed by another, than that a writer noted for the use of peculiar words and phrases should, in a composition of a character somewhat different from his other productions, use terms not found elsewhere in his writings, But, 2ndly, let us examine the instances adduced by Tholuck, and see whether they bear out his reasoning. Paul nowhere calls Christ priest.' True; but though Paul, in writing to churches composed more or less of Gentile converts, whose previous ideas of priests and priestly rites were anything but favourable to their receiving under sacerdotal terms right notions of Christ and his work, never calls Christ a priest, is that any reason for our concluding that in writing to Jews, who had amongst them a priesthood of divine organization, and writing for the express purpose of showing that that priesthood was typical of Christ, it is inconceivable that the apostle should have applied the term priest to Christ? To us the difficulty would rather seem to be to conceive how, in handling such a topic, he could avoid calling Christ a priest.-' Paul nowhere calls Christ a shepherd and an apostle, as the writer of this epistle does.' But the whole weight of this objection to the Pauline origin of this epistle must rest on the assumption that Paul never uses | figurative appellations of Christ in his writings; for if he do, why not here as well as elsewhere? Now it could only be the grossest unacquaintedness with the apostle's writings which could lead any to affirm this. The very opposite tendency is characteristic of them. Thus we find Christ termed τέλος νόμου (Rom. x. 4), διάκονον περιTouñs (xv. 18), Tò táoxa nμwv (1 Cor. v. 7), Téтра (x. 4), à¤аржǹ (xv. 23), évì àvdpì (2 Cor. ii. 2), åкpoywvialov (Eph. ii. 20), &c. With these instances before us, why should it be deemed so utterly incredible that Paul could have called Christ áróσToλos and rouhy, that the occurrence of such terms in the epistle before us is to be held as a reason for adjudging it not to have been written by him? With regard to the use of duoλovía in the sense of religious profession, the reader may compare the passages in which it occurs in this epistle with Rom. x. 9; 2 Cor. ix. 13; 1 Tim. vi. 12, and judge for himself how far such a usage is foreign to the apostle. The phrase èyíŠEW TŶ 0e occurs once in this epistle (vii. 19), and once in the Epistle of James; Paul also once uses the verb actively (Phil. ii. 30); and, on the other hand, the author of this epistle once uses it intransitively (x. 25). As there is thus a perfect analogy in the usage of the verb between the two, why it should be supposed improbable that Paul should use it in reference to God, or why a phrase used by James should be deemed too Alexandrian to be used by Paul, we feel ourselves utterly at a loss to conceive. With regard to the use of TEλetov, Dr. Tholuck himself contends (Appendix, ii. 297) that it everywhere in this epistle retains the idea of completing; but he cannot understand how Paul could have contemplated the work of redemption under this term in this epistle, since in no other of his epistles is it so used. This difficulty of the learned professor may, we think, be very easily removed, by remarking that it does not appear to have been Paul's design elsewhere, so fully at least as here, to represent the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, as that arises from the former being sufficient, whilst the latter was not sufficient, to complete men in a religious point of view, i. e. to supply to them all they need, and advance them to all of which they are capable. That this is the theme of the writer the passages in which the word in question occurs show; and we see no reason why such an idea might not have occurred to Paul as well as to any other man. Such are the objections on which the more recent impugners of the Pauline authorship of this epistle seem inclined to lay most stress. A multitude of others have been urged by Bertholdt, Schulz, Seyffarth, &c., which have been carefully noticed and replied to by Stuart, but which it is unnecessary to adduce here, as their futility seems 832 HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE. very generally admitted even by those who take the anti-Pauline side. It appears, therefore, that from the epistle itself nothing can be gathered materially unfavourable to the opinion that Paul was its author, whilst there is much in it strongly tending to support that opinion. It yet remains that we should look at the external evidence bearing on this question. Here we shall find the same conclusion still more decisively supported. Passing by, as somewhat uncertain, the alleged testimony of Peter, who is supposed (2 Pet. iii. 15, 16) to refer to the Epistle to the Hebrews as the composition of Paul, and passing by, also, the testimonies of the apostolic fathers, which, though very decisive as to the antiquity and canonical authority of this epistle (see Forster's Inquiry, § 13), yet say nothing to guide us to the author, we come to the testimony of the Eastern church upon this subject. Here we meet the important fact, that of the Greek fathers not one ascribes this epistle to any but Paul. Pantamus (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 14), in the second century, ascribes it to the apostle; and so does Clement of Alexandria (ibid., Stromat. vi. 645, et sæpe). | Origen (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi.15), in affirming that the Pauline authorship of this epistle was in his day matter of ancient tradition, assents to the truth of this opinion, and in noticing what he thinks the un-Pauline features of the style, mentions that a report was extant to the effect that, whilst the ideas were Paul's, the words were those of Clement of Rome or of Luke; though, so far from regarding this as certain, he says that God knows who was the writer (i. e, as the context shows, the amanuensis) of this epistle.' Eusebius, whilst he places this epistle among the avrileyóMeva, knowing that in the church at Rome its claims had been questioned, nevertheless often quotes it as Paul's (see the passages in Lardner's Credibility; Works, iv. 249, ed. 1788), and includes it as received by the church generally among the Pauline epistles (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25). A number of other testimonies from the Eastern church may be found in Lardner (vol. vi. p. 391), fully justifying the assertion above made. Jerome also assures us (Ep. ad Dardanum) that it was received as Paul's by all the Greek writers. Nor does it appear that in any part of the Eastern church the Pauline origin of this epistle was ever doubted or suspected (comp. Olshausen, Opusc. Theolog. p. 95). In the Western church this epistle did not meet with the same early and universal reception. Notwithstanding the regard shown for it by Clement, the church at Rome seems to have placed it under a ban (comp. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 3; vi. 20, see Heinichen's note); and hence Tertullian ascribed it to Barnabas, and others to Luke and Clement, whilst no Latin writer is found during the first three centuries who ascribed it to Paul. In the middle of the fourth century, Hilary of Poictiers quotes it as Paul's; and from that time the opinion seems to have gained ground till the commencement of the fifth century, when it speedily became as general in the Western as it had been in the Eastern churches (Lardner, vol. vi. p. 393). Now, of what value is this state of opinion in the early churches of the West in the question of evidence now before us? To judge of this, we must bear in mind that the sole amount of evi HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE | dence arising from the testimony of the Latin churches is negative; all we can conclude from it, at the most, is that they had no sufficient evidence in favour of this epistle being Pauls; they do not seem to have had a shadow of historical evidence against its being his. The claims of Barnabas, Clement, and Luke, rest upon mere individual conjecture, and have no historical sup port. Supposing, then, that the rejection of this epistle by the Latins cannot be accounted for by circumstances peculiar to them, still this fact cannot diminish the weight of evidence accruing from the unanimity of the Greeks and Asiatics. Had the Latins been as unanimous in favour of Apollos or Clement as the Eastern churches were in favour of Paul, the case would have been different. The value of Paul's claims would in that case have been equal to the difference between the value of the Eastern tradition and the value of the Western. This would have furnished a somewhat puzzling problem; though even in that case the superiority of the Eastera witnesses to the Western would have materially advocated the claims of the apostle. As the case stands, all the positive evidence extant is in favour of the Pauline authorship of this epistle; and the only thing against it is that in the Latin churches there appears to have been no commonly received tradition on the subject. Under such circumstances, the claims of the apostle are entitled to be regarded as fully substantiated by the external evidence. The result of the previous inquiry may be thus stated. 1. There is no substantial evidence external or internal in favour of any claimant to the authorship of this epistle except Paul. 2. There is nothing incompatible with the supposition that Paul was the author of it. 3. The preponderance of the internal, and all the direct external, evidence, go to show that it was written by Paul. Assuming the Pauline authorship of the epistle, it is not difficult to determine when and ichere it was written. The allusions in ch. xiii. 19, 21, point to the closing period of the apostle's two years imprisonment at Rome as the season during 'the serene hours' of which, as Hug describes them (Introd. p. 603), he composed this noblest production of his pen. In this opinion almost all who receive the epistle as Paul's concur; and even by those who do not so receive it, nearly the same time is fixed upon, in consequence of the evidence furnished by the epistle itself of its having been written a good while after those to whom it is addressed had become Christians, but yet before the destruction of the Temple. That the parties to whom this epistle was addressed were converted Jews, the epistle itself plainly shows. Ancient tradition points out the church at Jerusalem, or the Christians in Palestine generally, as the recipients. Stuart contends for the church at Cæsarea, not without some show of reason. An early opinion that the epistle was first written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and then translated into Greek, has found in Michaelis a strenu ous defender (Introd. iv. p. 221). The arguments he adduces, however, are more specious than sound; and it has been abundantly shown by Lardner, Hug, Eichhorn, and others, that this opinion is untenable. Why Paul should have written in Greek to persons residing in Judæa is best answered by the reasons which Hug (Introd. p. 326, sqq.) and Diodati (De Christo Græce loquente exercitatio, &c., edited by O. T. Dobbin, LL.B., Lond. 1843) have adduced, to show that Greek was at that time well known to the mass of the Jews (comp. Tholuck, i. 78). Some have doubted whether this composition be justly termed an epistle, and have proposed to regard it rather as a treatise. The salutations, however, at the close, seem rather to favour the common opinion; though it is of little moment which view we espouse. The design of this epistle is to dissuade those to whom it is written from relapsing into Judaism, and to exhort them to hold fast the truths of Christianity which they had received. For this purpose the apostle shows the superiority of the latter over the former, in that it was introduced by one far greater than angels, or than Moses, from whom the Jews received their economy (i.-iii.), and in that it affords a more secure and complete salvation to the sinner than the former (iv.-x.). In demonstrating the latter position the apostle shows that in point of dignity, perpetuity, sufficiency, and suitableness, the Jewish priesthood and sacrifices were far inferior to those of Christ, who was the substance and reality, whilst these were but the type and shadow. He shows, also, that by the appearance of the anti-type the type is necessarily abolished; and adduces the important truth, that now, through Christ, the privilege of personal access to God is free to all. On all this he founds an exhortation to a life of faith and obedience, and shows that it has ever been only by a spiritual recognition and worship of God that good men have participated in his favour (xi.). The epistle concludes, as is usual with Paul, with a series of practical exhortations and pious wishes (xii.-xiii.). Of Commentaries on this epistle the following may be enumerated as ranking among the best. Owen's Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with preliminary exercitations, 4 vols. folio, Lond. 1668-84; Maclean's Paraphrase and Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 vols. 8vo., Lond. 1819; Stuart's Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 vols. 8vo., Lond. 1828; 1 vol. ibid. 1834; Carpzov, Sacræ Exercitt. in Pauli Ep. ad Heb. 8vo., Helmst. 1750; Storr, Pauli Brief. an d. Heb. erläutert, 8vo., Tüb. 1809; Ernesti, Lectiones Acadd. in Ep. ad Heb. 8vo., Lips. 1795; Böhme, Ep. ad Heb. lat. vert. et comment. perpet. instruxit. 8vo., Lips. 1825; Kuinoel, Comment. in Ep. ad Heb. 8vo., Lips. 1831; Bleek, Der. Br. an d. Heb. erläutert u.s.w. 2 bd., Berl. 1828-40. Tholuck, Kommentar zum Br. an d. Heb. 8vo., Hamb. 1840 (2te. Aufl.), translated into English by James Hamilton, M.A., and J. E. Ryland, Esq., 2 vols. s. 8vo., Edin. 1842.-W. L. A. HEBRON (; Sept. Xeßpúv), a town in the south of Palestine and in the tribe of Judah, 18 miles south from Jerusalem, in 31° 32′ 30" N. lat., 35° 8' 20" E. long., at the height of 2664 Paris feet above the level of the sea (Schubert). It is one of the most ancient cities existing, having, as the sacred writer informs us, been built seven years before Zoan in Egypt,' and being mentioned even prior to Damascus (Num. xiii. 22; Its most ancient Geu. xiii. 18; comp. xv. 2). name was Kirjath-arba, that is, the city of Arba,' from Arba, the father of Anak and of the Anakim who dwelt in and around Hebron (Gen. xxiii. 2; Josh. xiv. 15; xv. 3; xxi. 11; Judg. i. 10). It appears to have been also called Mamre, probably from the name of Abraham's Amoritish ally (Gen. xxiii. 19; xxxv. 27; comp. xiv. 13, 28). The ancient city lay in a valley; and the two remaining pools, one of which at least existed in the time of David, serve, with other circumstances, to identify the modern with the ancient site (Gen. xxxvii. 14; 2 Sam. iv. 12). Much of the life-time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was spent in this neighbourhood, where they were all entombed; and it was from hence that the patriarchal family departed for Egypt by the way of Beersheba (Gen. xxxvii. 14; xlvi. 1). After the return of the Israelites, the city was taken by Joshua and given over to Caleb, who expelled the Anakim from its territories (Josh. x. 36, 37; xiv. 6-15; xv. 13-14; Judg. i. 20). It was afterwards made one of the cities of refuge, and assigned to the priests and Levites (Josh. xx. 7; xxi. 11, 13). David, on becoming king of Judah, made Hebron his royal residence. Here he reigned seven years and a half; here most of his sons were born; and here he was anointed king over all Israel (1 Sam. ii. 1-4, 11; 1 Kings ii. 11; 2 Sam .v. 1, 3). On this extension of his kingdom Hebron ceased to be sufficiently central, and Jerusalem then became the metropolis. It is possible that this step excited a degree of discontent in Hebron which afterwards encouraged Absalom to raise in that city the standard of rebellion against his father (2 Kings xv. 9, 10). Hebron was one of the places fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 10); and after the exile the Jews who returned to Palestine occupied Hebron and the surrounding villages (Neh. xi. 15). Hebron is not named by the prophets, nor in the New Testament; but we learn from the first book of Maccabees, and from Josephus, that it came into the power of the Edomites, who had taken possession of the south of Judah, and was recovered from them by Judas Maccabæus (1 Macc. v. 65; Joseph. Antiq. xii. 8. 6). During the great war, Hebron was seized by the rebel Simon Giorides, but was re-captured and burnt by Cerealis, an officer of Vespasian (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. iv. 9; vii. 9). Josephus describes the tombs of the patriarchs as existing in his day; and both Eusebius and Jerome, and all subsequent writers who mention Hebron down to the time of the Crusades, speak of the place chiefly as containing these sepulchres. In the course of time the remarkable structure enclosing the tombs of Abraham and the other patriarchs was called the Castle of Abraham; and by an easy transition this name came to be applied to the city itself; till in the time of the Crusades the names of Hebron and Castle of Abraham were used interchangeably. Hence, as Abraham is also distinguished among the Moslems by the appellation of el Khulil, the Friend' (of God), this latter epithet became, among them, the name of the city; and they now know Hebron only as el Khulil (Robinson's Researches, ii. 456). Soon after the Crusaders had taken Jerusalem, Hebron also appears to have passed into their hands, and, in 1100, was bestowed as a fief |