Among recent Hebraists the name of Lee {Grammar
HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO 140 HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO
of the Ihh. Lang, in a Series of Lectures, Lond. 3d edit. i«44; Lexicon J/eb.Chahl.dnd Enff/.l>iH)),E%va\d {Krii. Cramm. der lleb. Spr. A fi.<fiilirlich bearbeitet, Lpz. 1827 ; 7th cd. 1863, under the title of Auifii/irHckes Lehrb. der J I eh. Spr. des A.B.), and Hupfeld {Exercitatione.t yEthi- opiccT. 1«25; De emend. Lexicogr. Sem. ratione Comment. 1.SJ7: I'l-ber T/ieorie der lleb. Gr. in the Theol. Studien vikI Krilikm for 1«-2H; Aiisf. Hebr. Gram. 1841), are the most jiroininent. Each of these pursues an independent coiu-se, but all of tliem incline more or less to the school of Alt in;; and Danz. Lee avows that the aim of his grammatical investigations is to "study the language as it is, that is, as its own analogy collected from itself and its cognate dialects exhibits it" {Grammar, Pref. p. iv, new ed. 1844). Ewald has combined with his phil- osophical analysis of the language, as it exists in its own documents, a more extended use of the cognate di- alects: he contends that, to do justice to the Hebrew, one tTiust first l)e at liome in all the branches of Sliemit- ic Hterature, and that it is by combining these with the old Hebrew that the latter is to be called from the dead, and piece by piece endowed with life {Gixtmrnatik, Pref. p. ix). Hupfeld's method is eclectic, and does not dif- fer from that of Gesenius, except that it assigns a larger influence to the pliilosophic element, and aims more at basing the grammar of the language on first principles analytically determined ; hy^ him also the Japhetic lan- guages have been called in to cast light on the Shemitic, a course to which Gesenius too, after formally repudia- ting it, came in his later works to incline.
Among the Jews, the study of Hebrew literature has been much fettered by rabbinical and traditional preju- dices. Many able grammarians, however, of this school have ajipeared since the beginning of the 16th centurj-, among whom the names of the brothers David and Mo- ses Proven^ale, Lonzano Norzi, Ben-Melech, Siisskind, and Lombroso are especially to be mentioned. A more lilieral impulse was communicated by Solomon Cohen ( 1709-6-2 ), but ^Mendelssohn was the first to introduce the results and methods of Christian research among his nation. Fiirst (Lehrgeb. d. A ram. Idiome mit Bezug auf die lml„-G,'rm. Spr. \. Cludd. Gram. 1835; Charuze Pe- niitlm, IKiC; r„i,ronlai,/l<r Llbr. Vet. Test. 1840; Hebr. vnd Chald. //awlirOr/crbnck iiber der A.T.2 vols. 1857) seeks to combine the historical with the analytical method, taking note of all the phenomena of the He- brew itself, illustrating these from the cognate tongues, and those of the Indo-CJermanic class, and at the same time endeavoring on philosophic grounds to separate the accidental from the necessary, the ratUcal from the ram- ified, the germ from the stem, the stem from the branch- es, so as to arrive at the laws which actually rule the language. All his works are of the higliest value. Mr,
it, then, a just claim to be received by us as a portion of that Bible which contains the rule of oiur faith and the ride of our practice, laid down by Christ and his apos- tles ? Was it regarded as such by the primitive Church, to whose clearly expressed judgment in this matter all later generations of Christians agree to defer? Of course, if we possessed a declaration by an inspired apos- tle that this epistle is canonical, all discussion would be superfluous. But the interj^retation (by F. Spanheim and later wTiters) of 2 Pet. iii, 15 as a distinct reference to Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews seems scarcely tenable. For, if the " you" whom Peter addresses be all Chris- tians (see 2 Pet. i. 1), the reference must not be Umited to the Epistle to the Hebrews; or if it include only (see 2 Pet. iii, 1) the Jews named in 1 Pet. i, 1 , there may be special reference to the Galatians (vi, 7-9) and Ephesians (ii, 3-5), but not to the Hebrews. Was it, then, received and transmitted as canonical by the im- mediate successors of the apostles?
In the Western Church this book underwent a some- what singular treatment. The most important witness here, Clement of Rome (A.D. 70 or 95) refers to this epistle in the same way as, and more frequently than, to any other canonical book. It seems to have been " wholly transfused," says Mr. Westcott (On the Canon, p. 32), into Clement's mind. After his time it seems to have come luider some doubt or suspicion in the West. It is not cited or referred to by an}' of the earlier Latin fathers except Tertidlian, who ascribes it to Barnabas, and saj-s it was " receptior apud ecclesias illo apocrypho pastore moschorum," that is, the pastor of Hermas (De Pudicit. c. 20). Irenceus is said by Eusebius to have made quotations from it in a work now lost (Ilisf. Eccl, V, 26), but he did not receive it as of Pauline author- ship (Phot. Biblioth. Cod. 252, p. 904, cited by Lardner, ii, 165) ; and as Eusebius connects the Wisdom of Solo- mon with the Epistle to the Hebrews, as cited by Ire- nteus, it is probable the latter viewed the two as on the same footing. It is omitted by Caius, who onlj' reck- ons thirteen Pauline epistles (Euseb. LRst. Eccl. vi, 26 ; Jerome, De Vir. illust. c. 59) ; Hippol3-tus expressly de- clares it not to be Paid's (Phot, p, 801) ; it is omitted in the Miu-atori fragment ; and by the Roman Church gen- erally it seems to have been suspected (Euseb. //. E. iii, 3 ; vi, 20). Victorinus has one or two passages which look like quotations from it, but he does not mention it. and certainly did not receive it as the work of Paul (Lardner, iii, 300). In the 4th centun,- it began to be more generally received. Lactantius, in the beginning of the century, apparently borrows from it; Hilary of Poictiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, Faustinus, and INIarcellinus (who cites it as divina Scriptiira) ; Victorinus of Rome, Ambrose, Philaster (though admitting that some reject-