BRITISH AND FOREIGN EVANGELICAL REVIEW. SEPTEMBER 1854. ART. I.-Biblical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, in Continuation of the Work of Olshausen. By Dr JOHN H. A. EBRARD. Translated from the German, by the Rev. JOHN FULTON, for Clark's Foreign Theological Library. 8vo, pp. 430. THE work which is here before us in the form of a translation-and a translation of which it is not too much to say, that it is alike spirited and faithful-is among the latest contributions to the literature connected with the Epistle to the Hebrews, either in this country or on the continent. On this account partly, and partly also for its intrinsic merits, we select it in preference to some others that might be named, as an occasion for presenting our readers with a general review of the labours of commentators on this portion of New Testament Scripture. The epistle itself, in respect to doctrinal importance, is second only to the Epistle to the Romans, and not even second, if considered simply as a field for the exercise of hermeneutical talent, and the application of exegetical resources. The volumes and parts of volumes that have actually been written on it are sufficient to form a very considerable library. It is time surely to ask, what results have been gained by so much learned inquiry and discussion? Has the earnest and successive application of so many minds to the epistle served to throw any material light on its contents? Have any doubts been dispelled in the process, any difficulties been cleared up, any valuable conclusions arrived at? Do we, at this advanced period of time, occupy a more favourable position for the right understanding and use of the epistle, than those who have gone before us? Such questions naturally suggest them VOL. IIL-NO. X. 20 selves to our minds, when we think of the accumulated products of literary labour which the Epistle to the Hebrews has called into existence. And without promising to gratify our readers, by having to report as much progress as they possibly may expect to hear of-not without fear even, that disappointment may be as likely as satisfaction to be experienced by some at the close-we shall at least endeavour so to conduct our survey, as to indicate at the same time what there may be of progression, either in the views that have come to be held, or in the grounds on which they are maintained. If the discussion shall appear somewhat protracted, let it be remembered that it is the authority and import of one of the most precious and valuable portions of Scripture with which we have to do. The topics for discussion may be fitly embraced under a threefold arrangement :-first, what relates to the authorship; then, to the main theme; and finally, to the more peculiar textual difficulties. 1. In respect to the first of these topics the authorship— it has been remarked correctly, though, as it may well seem, somewhat paradoxically, that there is no portion of the New Testament writings of which the authorship is so much disputed, nor any of which the inspiration and canonical authority is more indisputable. Yet the two points are very closely linked together, so closely, indeed, that we doubt if a belief in the proper inspiration of the epistle could for any length of time, or with any considerable number of persons, hold its ground, excepting on the basis of its Pauline authorship. It is true, there have been firm believers in its strictly inspired character and divine authority, who yet have been incredulous as to its having been indited by the apostle Paul, or have even distinctly ascribed it to another hand. To this class Calvin unquestionably belonged. He had no doubt, he tells us, of its apostolic origin; but he could not persuade himself, on account of the style, that it had proceeded from the pen of the apostle of the Gentiles. Dr Davidson, we observe, in his valuable Introduction to the New Testament, speaks with commendation of these "straightforward statements of Calvin," and favourably contrasts them with what he calls "the puny attempts at reasoning," sometimes put forth on the part of those who treat the question of the authorship as vitally affecting the character of the epistle. But he has scarcely proceeded a single page till he himself betrays, by an incidental expression, its actual importance, and shows the naturalness of the transition from the non-Pauline to the not-inspired. For he says, when speaking of the sentiments of Irenæus, "He was not convinced that Paul was the writer, and, therefore, he did not quote it as a part of Scripture." There would have been no force or propriety in this therefore, either for Dr Davidson or for Irenæus, unless the conviction of the epistle not being of Paul, naturally gave rise to the inference, that its claim to be accounted scriptural was thereby, if not altogether destroyed, at least materially impaired. There are other things, however, which weigh with us here, than casual expressions, or the brief utterances of opinion from men circumstanced like Calvin, who, however, entitled to regard, have never carefully investigated the subject. But let any one look to the line of argument which is usually pursued by those who question or deny the Pauline authorship,let him turn, for example, to the Introduction of Michaelis, who first, in modern times, properly broke ground in this direction, and see how freely, in attempting to get rid of the authorship of Paul, he resorts to statements and suppositions utterly at variance with the credit and integrity of the epistle in its existing form,-let any one, we say, mark this in Michaelis, and mark also, if he chooses to continue the investigation farther, how, in proportion as the epistle is dissociated from Paul, a depreciatory tone is invariably assumed regarding it, and he will not need to be told, that there is but a short step between disowning the Pauline authorship and disparaging the intrinsic worth and proper inspiration of the epistle. Michaelis himself was so much of this opinion, that he held the one point to be the proper correlative of the other; so that, in his account, Pauline-inspired, non-Pauline-not inspired, were convertible terms. Nor is this so extreme a view of the matter as some might be disposed to think, and as we ourselves were once ready to believe. For, though there are not wanting portions of Scripture, which the church has never failed to acknowledge as among those given by inspiration of God, without knowing any thing for certain of their human. authorship, yet the particular portion now under consideration stands in an essentially different predicament. That an epistle so varied in matter, so profound in thought, so fresh and characteristic in its teaching, in all respects so important as a contribution to the doctrinal basis of the New Testament church, should be in the strict sense canonical, and yet not Pauline, which here is all one with not being apostolic,-would itself be a staggering thing, and not in very fitting accordance with the ideas commonly entertained of the distinctive work of apostolic men, or the economical distribution of the higher gifts of the Spirit. The great argument handled in the epistle, with the practical results involved in it, manifestly belongs to the fundamentals of the new dispensation; and in this, its only formal and authoritative exposition to the church, was a theme especially proper to be discussed by one of those who held the position of founders of the Christian Church, the immediate representatives and delegates of Christ. It was not less so, for any thing we can see, than the collateral subject of the calling of the Gentiles, the full revelation of which Paul deemed it so important to have placed in immediate connection with his own apostleship, Eph. iii. 1-12. Besides, in this particular epistle, whether we look to its internal structure or its incidental accompaniments, to the light it throws on the divine dispensations, the line of argumentation it adopts, the personal allusions occurring in it, or the historical traditions connected with it,-in all these there is so much to identify the production with the penmanship of the apostle of the Gentiles, that it is impossible to dissociate the epistle from him, without virtually attaching to it something of a supposititious character. If the writer was not actually Paul, then the alternative necessarily forces itself upon us, that he intentionally personated Paul, and personated him so dexterously, that from the earliest times to the present, the church has never been able to rid herself of the conviction that it is really the apostle who speaks in it. Should she ever fall from this conviction, there could, in the circumstances, be room only for anticipating one result-the epistle would be regarded as of spurious or doubtful origin, and at most of demi-canonical authority. This view of the matter is in no respect invalidated, but rather strengthened and confirmed, by the history of opinion regarding it, and more especially that portion of the history which embraces the more minute and learned discussions of modern times. We shall glance, however, in the first instance, to the earlier part of the history, and shall present, in the briefest manner possible, the external and traditional evidence connected with the authorship of the epistle. Partial and mutilated accounts have not unfrequently been given of this; but among respectable writers of the present day there can scarcely be said to be any diversity of opinion on the subject. The English commentator Peirce has summed up the evidence in a manner so fair, and at the same time so brief and compendious, that we cannot do better than quote his summary. After a particular examination of the different notices of the epistle, as regards its authorship, in the writings of the earlier Fathers, he concludes, "Upon the whole, we see that there were among the ancients only three opinions about the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. One single man, Tertullian, fancied that Barnabas was the author of it. Some three or four [namely, Irenæus, Hippolytus one of his disciples, and Caius a Roman presbyter], and the modern Church of Rome [he means modern as compared with the Asiatic churches], denied it to be St Paul's, and at the same time denied it to be a canonical epistle [let the conjunction of the two denials be marked.] But the most general tradition, from the very first time we read any thing about the author, to the year of Christ 398, was that St Paul wrote it; and the writers within this space (some of Africa, some of France, some of Italy, some of Rome in particular, and some of other countries) are witnesses to the tradition that Paul was the author of this epistle. Their evidence seems to be very convincing; for, how little stress soever is to be laid on the opinions of the Fathers with regard to the doctrines of the gospel or the sense of Scripture, yet all must allow that they were as capable as any men living of testifying to a matter of fact which came under their own observation. Since, therefore, they assure us that tradition handed down the Epistle to the Hebrews as the work of St Paul, we cannot doubt but that this in fact was the tradition. And since this tradition was ancient in the days of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, about 130 years after the epistle was written, it must have had its rise in the days of St Paul himself, and so cannot reasonably be contested." To this we may add the testimony of the commentator now more immediately before us, Ebrard, who is not less clear and decided in respect to the ancient historical evidence of the Pauline authorship, though as to the actual production of the epistle he would introduce, as we shall see, another element to account for the form it assumes. But on this point he says, "The primitive and general tradition of the East is in favour of the Pauline authorship. It is also confirmed by the remarkable circumstance, that the Epistle to the Hebrews, as is still evident from the numbering of the Kephalia in the Codex B, originally stood between the Epistle to the Galatians and that to the Ephesians; and was not till a later period, in the fourth century, placed after the Epistles to the Thessalonians (as in Cod. A and C), and still later after the pastoral epistles. The firmness and unanimity," he further states, "of the oriental tradition remains altogether inexplicable, if it be not supposed that the Epistle to the Hebrews came to Jerusalem under the name and authority of Paul." Nor is Tholuck himself less decided. He holds it for certain, that "in the Eastern church no communities or churches, far less the majority of such, regarded the epistle as the production of any one but Paul." The doubts, which appear from some passages in Origen and scattered notices elsewhere, to have occasionally existed, he conceives to have been manifestly not "founded on historical grounds," and to have belonged to certain individuals, who were unable to ex |