HEBREWS. EPISTLE TO THE. 



HECATE. 



they must mean acoordin_ 



it i* allowed that all the other 



of punctuation; and 

 bid anciently no 



point*. The beat argument* on both rides of the question are giv. n in 

 BuzUnT*'Tibenia,fiTeCommentariuiHaioratiileoa,'4to, 1620,iuwhich 

 the antiquity of the potato U majntjinaH, and in Ca|llu'i ' Arcanum 

 puncUtioui* rt'velatuni,' 4U>, 1624, in which their antiquity U denied. 

 Furtlier information on the subject will be found in most grammars. 

 The system of aooentuation depends on that of |ints, and was in ail 

 probability introduced at the tame time. The aooenU mark the 

 relation of one word to another in a sentence, and thus serve an im- 

 portant purpose in the syntax of the language. Many scholars have 

 oonaidered the aeoenU almost useless ; but one of the moat eminent 

 Hebraist* of the present day remarks ( K w aid, ' Hebrew Grammar,' 642, 

 Engl. TranaL), " We everywhere find a beautiful harmony between the 

 aooentuation and the syntax, so that they mutually support and explain 

 each other. Whether we set out from the syntax, and learn to com- 

 prehend it without knowing any thing of the accentuation, or whether 

 we proceed from the accentuation to the syntax, an accurate investi- 

 gation will always lead to the same results, so that he who thoroughly 

 understands the syntax is for the most part clearly possessed of the 

 accentuation also, and he who understands the latter becomes through- 

 out more easily at home in the former. This is, however, at the same 

 time the beet commendation of the accentuation." We must distin- 

 guish, however, the accentuation of the historical and poetical books. 

 The remarks of Ewald apply only to the accentuation of the historical 

 books. Many of the accents in the poetical books serve the same 

 purpose as those in the historical ; but the greater part were intended 

 to indicate the tone according to which the Scriptures were chanted in 

 the synagogue. The accents are explained with great clearness in 

 Stuart's ' Hebrew Grammar.' 



HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE, a book of the New Testament 

 The absence of the initiatory formula usual in the apostolic epistles 

 has led some to doubt whether this book is an epistle or a dissertation. 

 But it contains allusions to particular circumstances, which prove it to 

 be an epistle (v. 11, 12; vi. 9, 10; x. 32-34; xiii. 19, 22, 23). The 

 general opinion respecting the persons to whom this Epistle was 

 addressed U tliat they were the Jewish converts in Jerusalem or 

 Palestine generally. This opinion, as Michaelia has shown, U sup- 

 ported by the contents of the book itself. (Marsh's ' Michaclis,' vol. iv. 

 pp. 193-7.) Others suppose it to have been addressed to the Jews of 

 Asia Minor, and Dr. Noesselt contends for its having been written to 

 the Theesalonians. Concerning the language in which this epistle was 

 written critics have been much divided ; some supposing tliat it was 

 written in Greek, and others that it was written in Hebrew and trans- 

 lated into Greek. The latter opinion was held by Clement of Alex- 

 andria (who states " that it was written by Paul in the Hebrew language 

 for the use of the Hebrews, and that Luke translated it for the benefit 

 of the Greeks ") ; by Eusebius, and by other fathers ; and ia strongly 

 advocated by Michaelis. The other opinion is supported by Lardner, 

 Macknight, Koaenrauller, Professor Stuart, and most modern com- 

 mentators. 



The author of this Epistle is equally uncertain. The general voice 

 of tradition assigns it to the apostle Paul, but it has also been ascribed 

 to Barnabas, to Luke, to Silas, and to Apollos. 



In the first ages of the church it appears to have been generally 

 considered as a production of the apostle Paul, though great doubts 

 were very early entertained on the subject In the Alexandrian church 

 we have the testimony of Panttenus (A.D. 180) to its Pauline origin, as 

 well as that of Clement, in the passage quoted above, and in other 

 parts of his writings. These testimonies are preserved by Eusebius 

 (' Hist Kccles.,' book vi. c. 14). Eusebius also quotes a passage from 

 Origen (Ibid., c. 25), which has been variously understood, but which 

 teems to imply that an objection had been raised against the Pauline 

 origin of the epistle from the superiority of its style to that of the 

 acknowledged Epistles of Paul, and that to meet this objection Origen 

 supposed the sentiments to be Paul's, but the diction tliat of some other 

 person, a disciple of Paul. But he adds : " If any church therefore 

 hold this epistle to be Paul's, let it receive commendation for thin. 

 For it is not without reason that the ancients have handed it down as 

 Paul's." In Origen's own writings it is frequently quoted as being 

 written by Paul ; and after his time the Alexandrian fathers unani- 

 mously ascribe it to the same apostle. Turning to the Eastern church 

 we find passages in the writings of the fathers, which are thought by 

 some to be indirect quotations from this epistle. The earliest direct 

 testimony is that of Eusebius, who mentions fourteen epistles as being 

 clearly and certainly Paul's, but adds that " some have rejected that 

 which is written to the Hebrews, alleging, with the church at Rome, 

 that it is spoken against as not being Paul's." He frequently cites it 

 as written by Paul: The Western church seems to have been greatly 

 divided on this subject from about the close of the 2nd to the middle 

 of the 4th century, when Jerome states that the Epistle was received 

 as Paul's by all the Greek and some of the Latin churches, though 

 rejected by most of the Latins, who ascribed it to Barnabas or Clement 

 of Rome, but held it in high esteem, and read it in their churches. 

 Jerome himself, and Augustine, constantly refer to it, sometimes as an 

 apostolic production, and sometimes as St. Paul's. Their authority 

 appears finally to have established the belief in its Pauline origin 

 among the Western churches. The modern advocates of the same 



opinion have attributed the doubts which prevailed in the Western 

 church at the end of the 2nd century to the disputes with the Mon- 

 tanists, who relied on this Epistle in support of some of their opinions. 

 On the other hand, those who believe that Paul did not write the 

 Bpistle ascribe the strong testimony of the Alexandrian fathers in iU 

 favour to their great fondness for the allegorical interpretation !' 

 Scripture, which the stylo of thin Epistle U thought to sanction. The 

 passage in 2 Peter iii. 15, is thought by some to refer to the Epistle to 

 Ihe Hebrews. 



The internal evidence in favour 'of Paul being the author is drawn 

 irom the reference (a xiii. v. 23) to Timothy, who is known to have 

 wen Paul's intimate friend and frequent companion ; and from other 

 incidental allusions (see x. 34; xiii. 18, 19, 24). In the arrangement 

 of the Epistle, the former part being doctrinal and the Utter part 

 Hortatory ; in the mode of using quotations from the Old Testament 

 ind the style of argument adopted ; jn the doctrines most prominently 

 stated and the phraseology employed ; there are great resemblance* 

 between this book and St. Paul's acknowledged epistles. (For ex- 

 amples see Prof. Moses Stuart's ' Commentary on the Hebrews,' Introd., 

 sects. 20-24, and Home's ' Introduction,' vol. iv., p. 415, &c., ed. 1834.) 

 The chief objections against the Pauline origin of the epistle are drawn 

 from the absence of the usual address at the beginning, the superiority 

 of the style to that of Paul's acknowledged epistles, and the resem- 

 blance between its style and that of the Alexandrian school. The 

 points above stated are discussed with great ability and candour by 

 Prof. Moses Stuart in favour of the Pauline origin of the epistle, and 

 Prof. Bleek (' Her Brief an die Hebriier') on the other side. On 

 the whole, the arguments of St Paul being the writer seem to be 

 irresistible. 



The opinions which assign the authorship to Barnabas, Apollos, 

 Luke, and Silas, rest on very slight grounds. The second of them was 

 first started by Luther, a conjecture founded on the resembl.inco 

 which the epistle bears to what we might expect to have been written 

 on such a subject by a man of the character given to Apollos in Acts 

 xviii. 24-28. 



The date depends partly on the settlement of the former question. 

 The internal evidence of the Epistle shows that it was written while 

 the temple at Jerusalem was standing (see viii. 4-6; ix. 9), and pro- 

 bably not long before its destruction in A.D. 70. If Paul was the 

 author, it was probably written during his first imprisonment at Home, 

 and immediately before he was released (see xiii. 18, 19, 23). Accord- 

 ingly most critics refer it to A. p. 61 or 62 ; some say A.D. 58. 



The canonical authority of this Epistle depends partly on its author- 

 ship ; but may be argued on other grounds. It is repeatedly < 

 by Clement of Alexandria, and apparently by Barnabas, Hennas. Poly 

 carp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. It is contained in the Peshito 

 Syriac version, the date of which is not later than the 2nd century, and 

 in the old Latin versions made about the same period. From that. 

 time the questions of the canonical authority and the authorship aru 

 very much mixed up together. 



The design of the writer of this Epistle appears to have been to 

 sustain the faith of those to whom he wrote, while they were suffering 

 under persecution and inclined to apostacy. After urging them to the 

 practice of various Christian duties, he concludes with the usual 

 salutations. In warmth of feeling, elegance of language, and force of 

 argument, this epistle yields to no book of the New Testament. 



the ' Commentor zum Briefe an die Hobraer,' 1858, of Delitxdi. In 

 KittoV Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature,' a list of commentators 

 is given. 



II KI 'ATI'', one of the ancient Greek divinities, the daughter of tho 

 Titan Peraes and Astoria, according to Hesiod ('Theog.,' 411), but 

 others give to her a different parentage. She appears to have been 

 originally a Thracian deity, and regarded as a Titan of unusual powers. 

 She was a mystic goddess, and identified, more or less, with several 

 ancient Greek deities, bvit her attributes correspond in most respects 

 with those of Artemis; and it has therefore been < ni> < mred that she 

 may originally have been tho same as Artemis. ll<i i Minim- 



of Hecatus (" the far-shooting"), one of the names of Apollo, the 1 

 of Artemis, is thought to favour this supposition. Hecate presided 

 over hunting and fishing, the deliberations of the popular assotnlily 

 and the courts of justice. She seems also to have appropriated to 

 herself part of the duties of Persephino (Proserpine) ; since she wax 

 regarded as the mistress of the lower world, tho arbiter of the souls of 

 the departed, and the patroness of magic. She was considered a bene- 

 ficent deity, who answered the prayers of her worshippers. Her 

 statues were placed at cross-roads and before houses. She was held in 

 murli respect in Athens, where she was regarded as the patroness of 

 faiuilim and children. She was greatly venerated by the inhabitants 

 of .-Eifina. who held a festival once a year in honour of her ; which was 

 said to have been instituted by Orpheus. (Pausan., ii. 30.) Repre- 

 sentations of her are very numerous. Sometimes she appears as a 

 three-headed being, attended by the Stygian dogs ; sometimes with 

 three bodies, when she is the same as the Diana Triformis of the 

 Romans (Virgil, ' -ln.' iv. fill). We give an engraving of Hecate (or 

 Diana Triformis), from a votive statue, 2 feet 6 inches high, in t)n> 



