161 religious encyclopedia harmoa Harmony of the Gospels

Download 5.36 Mb.
Size5.36 Mb.
1   ...   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   ...   46


Hittites, The

ghazkeui with Arzaba (one of the leading Hittite

cities between 1500 1100 B.C.), and a third is the

assurance that the Hittites formed a large confed­

eration of states under the leadership of a single

king. The inscriptions, except the most recent,

are in relief, not incised, thus agreeing in form with

the oldest Aramean inscriptions, and they are

boustrophedon (a discovery due to Dr. W. H.

Ward in 1873). Their age is placed by Jensen be­

tween 1300 and 550 B.C. All are monolingual so

far as known, except that called the boss of Tar­

kondemos, which is in Hittite and Assyrian, but

is so brief that the cuneiform is of little use as an

aid to decipherment. Two of the Amama Tab­

lets are in an unknown tongue, and may be Hittite.

Since these inscriptions are not in any strict

sense deciphered, the information they afford is

little, apart from the indications their situation gives

concerning the region covered by Hittite action.

While for years Professor Sayce has

g. Attempted been claiming to have deciphered

Decipher  parts of them, and others, as Conder

ment of and Jensen, make like claims, except

Inscriptions. in isolated cases no one of these con­

cedes the claim of the others, and in

general the assumed decipherments assign the lan­

guage to different basal stocks. Ward holds the

language to be Turanian, possibly Ural Altaic;

Conder declares it Ural Altaic, with suggestions of

a connection with the Akkadian; Campbell masses

under the name Hittites a number of races and

tribes; Hal6vy thinks he has proved the language

to be Semitic; Jensen calls it " proto Armenian,"

i.e., Indo Germanic, and in his " decipherment),

attempts to make out a connection with the Ar­

menian (of which he naively acknowledges that he

knows little), and charges his predecessors in the

attempt to read the inscriptions with " wild logic,"

a charge, which Messerschmidt retorts upon him

with many exclamation marks. Thus the Hittite

people and language have been connected with

both of the great families of nations and with the

Turanian group, a fact which speaks eloquently of

the obscurity in which the subject still lies. Pro­

fessor Sayce in 1906 made the candid statement

that decipherment of the inscriptions is yet unae­

cOmPlished. While shrewd deductions have been

made, a few names read with general agreement,

and in several cases, probably, fairly close approach

to the meaning bas been gained, these facts do not

contradict the statement that the Hittite script is

still a puzzle for the solution of which adequate

material and clear clues have till the present been

lacking. It now seems possible, however, with the

very abundant material recovered from Boghaz­

keui, including treaties between the Hittites and

the Mitanni, that a solution of the vexed problems

will be reached. Thus it has been shown that a

group of Indian deities is appealed to in the trea­

ties referred to, the names Mitra, India, paruna


and Nasatya being unmistakable. The indications given by the divine names are strengthened by dy­nastic and proper names of Iranian type. These facts suggest either Hindu Aryan affinities or bon rowing, the former much the more likely. Decided progress has been made in reading the records, and


the prospects for decipherment of inscriptions and therefore of more complete and accurate informa­tion are (1909) very bright.

On the Egyptian monuments the people are al­ways figured as a yellow race, with very prominent protuberant noses and large nostrils, retreating forehead and chin and thick lips, high cheek bones, black hair and eyes. They are generally por­trayed as beardless and as wearing the hair in a queue. They appear short in stature, but heavy in build. Since the Assyrians were not expert in drawing, as were the Egyptians, the Assyrian por­traiture gives nothing additional. The monuments of the Hittites corroborate all the de 

b. The tails afforded by the Egyptian por 

People. tfaiture except the color, which the

nature of the remains does not indi­

cate. But the men are everywhere portrayed as

wearing high boots with the toes curling upward

and even backward, and generally as wearing mit­

tens with a separate stall for the thumb only. The

raiment seems heavy and agrees with the items just

given in suggesting the emergence of the people

from a cold snowy climate. Along with this goes

the fact that the region into which they spread

favors their coming by a route between the Black

Sea and the Caspian. The evidence points to a

period between 1600 and 1300 s.c. as the time

when perhaps they pushed their outposts south­

ward till forced back by Egyptian and perhaps

Philistine resistance, when they spread eastward

toward the Egean. Their centers were at Car­

chemish, Hamath, Kadesh on the Orontes, Senjirli,

and Boghazkeui, while Hebron seems to have been

their most southern point of settlement. The men­

tion in the historical books of the Old Testament

suggests that they constituted an element in the

population of Palestine. Some points of their

physiognomy seem to corroborate Jensen's con­

tention that they were " proto Armenians." On

the other hand, the accounts of the many Assyrian

campaigns in Armenia do not contain a single hint

that the sturdy opponents of that power in the

Armenian Mountains were of the Hittite race.

This is the more decisive since the Assyrians were

at the time in conflict with Hittites elsewhere.

Moreover, other physiological characteristics, such as

hair (especially the queue), and the high cheek bones

seem to connect them with the Mongolian race.

The idea of a Hittite " empire " in the sense of a unified rule is not borne out by the historical in­dications, but what does appear is the appearance of confederation (see § 4 above). As invaders of southern Asia and opponents of Egyptian and later of Assyrian aggression, there was a power of reserve which with other marks suggests mutual support and a power of confederation which contrasts strongly with Semitic

7. Their separativeness. The condition is some­"Empire"; thing like that of the Philistines whose

Influence cities were under individual rule yet

on who acted together in case of aggres 

Culture. sive campaigns. Their meaning for

civilization is only secondary, through

the Greek. They unquestionably influenced early

Greek inscriptions and art early Greek writing

was boustrophedon. A Hittite seal in the posses­sion of Dr. Ward is unmistakably allied to the Mycenaean seals and drawings. The Eons of My­cen2e, the rope pattern of Greek adornment, the Greek sphinx, and some of the Greek deities are firmly held to be of Hittite origin. Dr. Ward sug­gests that not improbably they gave to the Greeks the last five letters of the Greek alphabet, a sugges­tion which does not seem to have been used in at­tempts at decipherment. See ASSYRIA; CANAAN, CANAANITE6, § 7; CARCHEMISH.


BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Brown, in Presbyterian Review, 1880; W. Wright, The Empire of as Hittites, London, 1888; Ball in PSBA, x (1888), 437 aqq.; G. Perrot and C. Chipies, History of Art in . . Assyria, Phanicia . . . and Asia Minor, 2 vols., London, 1884 85; A. H. 8ayee, The Hittites; the Story of a forgotten Empire, London, 1888; C. R. Conder, Altaic Hieroglyphs and Hittite In­scriptions, ib. 1889; J. Campbell, The Hittites, 2 vols.. Toronto, 1890 (covers language, ethnology, and history); Halivy, in MEvaires de Cacad6xiie des inscriptions et belles lettres, Paris, 1892; idem, in Revue almitique, i. 56 sqq., 126 sqq.; F. E. Peiser, Die hditisrhan Inachriftan, Berlin, 1892 (attempts decipherment); T. Tyler, in Re­ligious systems of the world. London, 1893; C. A. de Care. Gill Hethei Palaapi, 3 vole., Rome, 1894 1902 (identifies the Hittites and the Pelasgians); J. F. McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, i., ¢§ 156 167, New York. 1894; P. Jensen, Hittiter and Armenier, Strasburg, 1898 (sums up his work on the inscriptions); idem, in H. V. Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, pp. 753 793, Philadelphia, 1903; L. Messerschmidt, Bemerkunpen su den hetitischsn Inachriften, also Corpus inscriptionum Hitticarum, all in Miuheilunpen der roorderasiatischen Oessllschaft, Berlin, 1898, 1900, 1902, 1906; W. H. Ward, in H. V. Hilpreeh, Recent Research in Bible Lands, pp. 159 190, Philadelphia, 1898; Menant, in MEvwires de 1'acadfie des inscriptions, vol. xxxiv. 1 aqq.; Nowack, Archdolopie, i. 96, 282, 341; especially H. Winokler and O. Puahetem in Mittedunpen der deutachen Orient (lesell­ackaft, for 1908 08, especially Dec., 1907, and E. Meyer in 3itsunpabarichte der preussischen Akadernie der Wiseen­schaften, Jan., 1908. The files of the PSBA since 1887 contain much material which is pertinent.

HITZE, FRANZ: German Roman Catholic; b. at

Hannemicke, Westphalia, Mar. 16, ,1851. He

studied at Wilrzburg 1872 78, and then was chap­

lain of the German Campo Santo at Rome for two

years. He was then appointed secretary of the

Roman Catholic society Arbeiterwohl at Munich­

Gladbach, and two years later was elected to the

Landtag, going to the Reichstag in 1904. In 1893

he was appointed associate professor of Christian

sociology at Munster, where he was promoted to

his present position of full professor of the same

subject in 1904. He has written: Die soziale

Frage and die Beatrebungen zu ihrer Uaung (Pader­

born, 1877); %apital and Arbeit and die Reorgani­

sation der Gesellsehaft (1880);, Quintessenz der 8o­

zialen Frage (1880); Pflichten and Aufgaben der

Arbeitgeber (Cologne, 1888); Wesentliche Bestim­

mungen des Gesetzes betreffend die Invaliditf  and

Alteraversicherung (Munich Gladbaeh, 1889); Schutz

dem Arbeiter (Cologne, 1890); Normale Arbeitaord­

nteng (1891); and Arbeiter frage (Berlin, 1898).

HITZIG, hit'siH, FERDINAND: German exegete and Old Testament critic; b. near L6rrach (28 m. s.s.w. of Freiburg), Baden, June 23, 1807; d. at Heidelberg Jan. 22, 1875. He studied theology at Heidelberg, Halle, and GBttingen, and became privet docent at Heidelberg in 1829. He first at 

tracted attention by the two treatises, Begri ff der Kritik am Alter Testament praktisch erortert (Hei­delberg, 1831) and Des Propheten Jonas Orakel caber Moab (1831). From 1833 till 1861 he was professor of theology at Zurich. Here his upright character, commanding scholarship, and critical acumen won for him recognition, even among those who did not approve of his rationalizing tendencies. In 1861 he returned to Germany as professor of theology at Heidelberg.

Hitzig was remarkably productive, but whimsical. As in the cuneiform inscriptions he perceived an Indo Germanic speech, similarly he sought to explain certain words of the Old Testament through the Sanskrit. Still more widely prejudicial to his scholarly standing was the constructive criticism which he professed, in contrast to the more nega­tive attitude of De Wette. Thus he thought he could determine exactly the original condition of most of the Psalms from David's era down to the first century l;.c. Another defect was his super­ficial view of revelation, which he assigned to faith (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 2 parts, Leipsic, 1869­1870; cf. vol. i., p. 82), the true God having been discovered " by means of a stronger power of thought." But despite these and other untenable views, Hitzig greatly advanced the exegesis of the Psalms (Die Psalmen, 2 vole., Heidelberg, 1835­1836; enlarged into a comprehensive commentary, 2 vole., Leipsic, 1863 65). Although he derived many a Psalm from Jeremiah's dungeon, and re­ferred about half of all the Psalms to the Macca­bean era, he can not be classed as a distinctly radical critic, even among his own contemporaries, seeing that he held the decalogue to be Mosaic.

Other works on the Old Testament by Hitzig are: Der Prophet Jesaia zibersetzt and ausgelegt (Heidelberg, 1833), his best exegetical work the Minor Prophets (Leipsic, 1838; 4th ed., 1881), Jeremiah (1841; 2d ed., 1866), Ecclesiastes (1847; 2d ed., 1883), Ezekiel (1847), Daniel (1850), and the Song of Songs (1855) in the Kurzgefasstes exe­getisches Handbuch zum Alter Testament; Die Sprdche Salomos (Zurich, 1858); and Dab Buch Hiob (Leipsic, 1874). His Vorlesungen tlber bxbli­sche Theologie and messianische WeiBsagungen des Alter Testaments were published at Carlsruhe,1880. A. KAMPHAUBEN.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: A Lebew  und',Charakter Skisrewas prefixed

by Kneucker to Hitsig's Vorleaunpen fiber bibliaehe Theo­logie, Carleruhe, 1880. The Gednchtniarede, by A. Haus­rath, is in the addition to the Aupaburgieehe allgemoine Zeitung, 1875,, no. 30; and a notice by Kneucker is in F. ion Weech, Badiache Biopraphieen, i. 377 380, Heidel­berg, 1875.


HOADLY, h6d'li, BENJAMIN: English bishop; b. at Westerham (15 m. s.s.e. of London), Kent, Nov. 14, 1676; d. at Winchester Apr. 17, 1761. He studied at Catherine Hall, Cambridge (B.A., 1696; M.A., 1699), where he was fellow (1697 1701) and tutor (1699 1701). After his ordination in 1701 he was lecturer at St. Mildred's, London, till 1711. Meanwhile he had received in 1704 the rectory of St. Peter le Poer, London. It was as an opponent of Edmund Calamy (q.v.) in the discussion re 



Hittites, The 8oadly

garding conformity at the beginning of the eight­eenth century that he first established his reputa­tion as a controversialist. In 1706 he began a controversy with Francis Atterbury (q.v.) on the in­terpretation of I Cor. xv. 19. Against Atterbury's view that Christians are compensated in a future world for their unhappiness in this, Hoadly took the ground that the greatest happiness in this life is attained by those who lead a Christian life. In 1709 he became the leader of the Low church party in a controversy with Atterbury and other supporters of hereditary right and passive obedience. In rec­ognition of his strenuous assertion of the " Revo­lution principles," particularly in his Measures of Submission to the Civil Magistrate (London, 1706) and Original and Institution of Civil Government (1709), parliament presented an address to Queen Anne in Dec., 1709, praying her to bestow some dignity upon him. Through the accession of the Tories to power Hoadly's preferment was indefi­nitely postponed, though he was presented by a private patron to the rectory of Streatham in 1710. In 1715 he was made a royal chaplain and elevated to the bishopric of Bangor. In 1716 he published his famous treatise, A Preservative against the Prin­ciples and Practices of Nonjurors both in Church and State, in which he attacked the divine authority of kings and clergy. On Mar. 31, 1717, he continued his attack in a sermon preached before the king on John xviii. 36, in which he denied pointblank that there is any such thing as a visible Church of Christ, and maintained that, since Christ was the only au­thoritative lawgiver, no one has the right to make new laws for Christ's subjects, or to interpret or enforce, old laws, in matters relating purely to con­science. This sermon, which was at once printed by royal command, precipitated what is commonly called the Bangorian Controversy. The High­church party sought to proceed against Hoadly in convocation, but the king prevented this by pro­roguing that body on Nov. 22, 1717. This contro­versy, which raged for three years, produced more than 200 tracts by fifty three different writers, and caused such intense excitement among all classes that for a time business in London was practically at a standstill. Hoadly's most important contribution to this controversy was The Common Rights of Subjects Defended (London, 1719). Among his more prominent opponents were Andrew Snaps, Thomas Sherlock, and William Law (qq.v.). Hoadly was translated to the see of Hereford in 1721, to that of Salisbury in 1723, and to the rich see of Winchester in 1734. He was an aggressive Latitu­dinarian (see LATITuDINARTANg) and the recognized leader of the extreme Latitudinarian party in Church and State. He was the friend and admirer of Samuel Clarke (q.v.), and was almost in entire accord with Clarke's refined Arianism. Though his writings are heavy, dull, and devoid of originality, they did excellent service in their day for the cause of civil and religious liberty. Hoadly's works were edited by his son, John Hoadly (3 vols., London, 1773).

131BLIOGRAPIIY: John Nichol, Literary Anecdotes of the 18th

Century, vole. i. v., 9 vols., London, 1812 15; John Hunt,

Hia. of Religious Thought in Englnd, vol. iii., i5,. 1873;

C. J. Abbey, The English Church and its Bishops, 17oo 

Hobart Hodge


1800, ii. 1 20 ib. 1887; J. H. Overton The Church in England, ii. 203, 217 218 227 229, ib. 1897; idem and F. Ftelton, The English Church 171.¢ 1800, pp. 14 18 et passim, ib. 1906; DNB, xxvii. 16 21.

HOBART, ALVAH SABIN: Baptist; b. at Whitby, Ontario, Mar. 7, 1847. He was graduated at Col­gate (then Madison) University in 1873 and Ham­ilton Theological Seminary in 1875. He has held pastorates at Morris, N. Y. (1874 78), Mount Au­burn, Cincinnati (187885), First Baptist Church, Toledo, 0. (1885 88), and Warburton Avenue Church, Yonkers, N. Y. (18881900). Since 1900 he has been professor of the English New Testament at Crozer Theological Seminary, Chester, Pa. . He was chairman of the Board of the American Baptist Home Missionary Society in 1897 99, and has been the recording secretary since 1890. He has written Life of Alvah Sabin (Cincinnati, 1885); Those Old­Fashioned Christians (Philadelphia, 1895); Gifts of the Spirit (Chicago, 1898); and Our Silent Partner (New York, 1908). In theology he ranks as a semi­conservative.

HOBART, JOHN HENRY: Protestant Episcopal bishop of New York; b. in Philadelphia Sept. 14, 1775; d. at Auburn, N. Y., Sept. 12, 1830. He studied at Princeton (B.A., 1793) and was tutor there 1795 98, when he was admitted to holy orders. After having served parishes in Philadelphia, New Brunswick, N. J., and Hempstead, L. I., he became an assistant at Trinity Church, New York, in 1800. He was elected assistant bishop of New York in 1811, and bishop of New York and rector of Trinity in 1816. In 1821 he was appointed to the chair of pastoral theology and pulpit eloquence in the Gen­eral Theological Seminary, New York, an institution that had been founded largely through his exer­tions. He also organized at Geneva, N. Y., an Epis­copal college, which in 1860 changed its name to Hobart College. He was an eminently successful leader and organizer in his Church, a zealous advo­cate of episcopal ordination, and the author, or compiler, of a number of books that attained a wide circulation and contributed in a marked degree to the rapid growth of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America during the first half of the nineteenth century. His more important works are: A Cam­panionfor the Altar (New York, 1804); Festivals and Fasts (1804); Essays on Episcopacy (1806); The Clergyman's Companion (1806); An Apology for Apostolic Order (1807); The Christian's Manual (1814); and Sermons on . . . Redemption (2 vols., New York and London, 1824). His Posthumous Works were edited, with a Memoir, by W. Berrian (3 vols., New York, 1833).

BIHLIoaRAPHT: J. F. Schroeder Memoir of Bishop Hobart, New York, 1833• J. MaeViekar, Early Years of the Late Bishop Hobart, ib. 1834; W. B. Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, v. 440 453 ib. 1859; Appleton's Cyclo­Podia of American Biography, ed. J. G. Wilson and J. Fiske, iii. 221 222 ib. 1898; W. S. Perry, The Episcopate in America, pp. 25 27, ib. 1895.

HOBBES, hebz, THOMAS: English philosopher; b. at Malmesbury, Wiltshire, Apr. 5, 1588; d. at Hardwick Hall (17 m. n.n.e. of Derby), Derbyshire, Dec. 4, 1679. He was educated at Magdalen Hall, Oxford (B.A., 1608), and upon his graduation was recommended to William Cavendish, afterward first


earl of Devonshire, as tutor for his eldest son. This was the beginning of a lifelong intimacy with the Cavendiahes. After the death of the second earl, his pupil and patron, he became tutor to the third earl of Devonshire, who in turn became his friend and patron. In his capacity as tutor Hobbes traveled extensively in Europe, meeting many dis­tinguished people and forming friendships with Galileo, Mersenne Gaesendi, and others. In London he met Francis Bacon, Ben Jonaon, Lord Herbert of Cherbury. John Selden, and William Harvey. At the beginning of the Long Parliament in 1640 Hobbes fled to Paris, where in 1646 he became mathematical tutor to the prince of Wales, after­ward Charles II. His position in Paris having be­come difficult by reason of suspicions as to his orthodoxy, he returned to England in 1651, sub­mitted to the new government, resumed his position in the household of his patron, and set about finish­ing his philosophical system. At the Restoration he received a pension of £100 from Charles II. He now engaged in several controversies, both religious and scientific. He attributed his exclusion from the founders of the Royal Society to the malignity of his opponents. In his later years he busied him­self by translating Homer and writing in Latin verse his autobiography and an ecclesiastical history.

In epistemology and psychology Hobbes was a sensualist, in metaphysics almost a materialist, and in ethics a hedonist. The only source of knowledge, he maintains, is sensation, the only objects of knowledge are bodies, either natural or political, and the only end of action is self interest. He regarded motion as the ultimate fact of existence, and self love as the fundamental law of nature. His political philosophy, his greatest achievement, is based upon these general views. The State, as he argued in his beat known work, Leviathan, is a contrivance for putting an end to the war of all against all, in the interest of the pur­suit of happiness. That there may be no dis­turbing dissensions, the power of the sovereign must be absolute. This power is merely delegated to him, and is in no sense original or divine. Against Grotius, Hobbes maintained that the social com­pact is not between the sovereign and his subjects, but between the subjects to obey the sovereign. This absolutism gives rise to the distinctions of good and bad. Whatever the sovereign commands is good, whatever he forbids is bad. Hobbea_pro­posed to remove the evils of sectarian animosity by completely subordinating the ecclesiastical to the secular authority, thus making religion depend­ent upon the whim of the absolute ruler. In 1666 his views were condemned by the House of Com­mons, and thereafter he was not permitted to pub­lish anything relating to human conduct.

On account of his rationalistic treatment of relig­ious doctrine Hobbes might well be called the second deist, just as Herbert of Cherbury has been called the first (see DEISM). In his day he pro­duced an intellectual ferment comparable only to that produced by Darwinism; and even till the middle of the eighteenth century Hobbism remained a term of reproach. Among his assailants were John Bramhall, Thomas Tenison, John Eachard, Ralph

1   ...   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   ...   46

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page