HOFMANN (J. C. K. von), † 1877: Die Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments. Vol. v. 8vo, Nördlingen, 1873. HYPERIUS (Andreas), † 1564: Commentarii in Epistolam D. Pauli Apostoli ad Hebraeos. fol. Tiguri, 1584. JONES (W.), D.D.: Commentary on the Epistles to Philemon, Hebrews, and the First and Second Epistles of John. fol. Lond. 1636. KLEE (H.): Auslegung des Hebräerbriefs. Mainz, 1833. Neu.-Ruppin, 1863 KURTZ (J. H.), Professor at Dorpat: Der Hebräerbrief erklärt. 1869. LAWSON (George), Rector of More, Shropshire: Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. fol. Lond. 1662. M'CAUL (J. B.), Canon of Rochester: A Paraphrastic Commentary, etc. Lond. 1871. MANCHESTER (George Montagu, Duke of): Horae Hebraicae [Heb. i.-iv. 11]. Lond. 1835. MENKEN (Gottfried), † 1831: Homilien über das 9te und 10t Kap., nebst einem Anhange etlicher Homilien über Stellen des 12ten Kap. Bremen, 1831. MOLL (C. B.): Der Brief an die Hebräer [Lange's series]. Bielefeld, 1861. [Translated by A. C. Kendrick, D.D. New York, 1871.] OECOLAMPADIUS (Joannes), † 1531: In Epistolam ad Hebraeos J. O. 4to, Argentorati, 1524. explanationes. [From notes taken by some of the hearers.] OWEN (John), D.D., † 1683: Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 4 vols. fol. London, 1668-74, al. fol. Tiguri, 1532-42. PELLICAN (Conrad), † 1556: Commentaria Bibliorum. 9 vols. [Vol. ix. "in omnes Epistolas."] PISCATOR (John), Professor at Herborn, † 1626: Analysis Logica Epistolae Pauli ad Hebraeos. [Commentarii in omnes libros Novi Testamenti, 3d ed. fol. p. 674-718. Herbornae, 1638.] REICHE (J. G.): Commentarius Criticus in Novum Testamentum. 4to, Göttingen, 1853-62. 3 vols. [Vol. iii. In Hebraeos et Catholicas Epistolas.] REUSS (Ed.): L'Epître aux Hébreux. Essai d'une traduction nouvelle, accompagné d'un commentaire théologique. RIEHM (E. C. A.): Lehrbegriff des Hebräerbriefs. Strasbourg, 1862. Ludwigsb. 1858, 1859. ROLLOCK (Robert), Principal of the University of Edinburgh, † 1598: Analysis Logica in Epistolam ad Hebraeos. Accessit brevis et utilis Tractatus de Justificatione. 8vo, Edinburgi, 1605. [Rollock carried the work only to xi. 6, the rest was finished and edited by Robert Charteris, at Rollock's request.] SCHLICHTING (Jonas), † 1664, and JOHN CRELL, † 1633: In Epistolam ad Hebraeos Commentarius. 8vo, Racoviae, 1634. 8vo, Lips. 1766. SCHMID (Chr. Fr.), † 1778: Observationes... historicae, criticae, theo- tarius. STEWARD (George): Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 1690. 8vo, Edin. 1872. STIER (Rudolf), † 1862: Der Brief an die Hebräer, in 36 Betrachtungen ausgelegt. 2 parts. 1842. STUART (Moses), Professor of Sacred Literature at Andover, † 1852 : Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 2 vols. 8vo, 1827, 1828, al. THOLUCK (Andreas), Professor at Halle, † 1877: Kommentar zum Briefe an die Hebräer. 8vo [1836], 3d ed. Hamburg, 1850. VALCKENAER (Lewis Casp.), Professor of Greek at Leyden, † 1785: Selecta e Scholiis. Edited by Wassenbergh. Tom. ii. Amst. 1817. WALTHER (Michael), Professor at Helmstädt, † 1662: Gründliche, erdeutliche und ausführliche Erläuterung der . . . Ep. St. Pauli an die Hebräer. fol. Nürnberg, 1646. WIESELER (Karl), Professor at Greifswald: Untersuchung über den Hebräerbrief, namentlich seinen Verfasser und seine Leser. 8vo, Kiel, 1861. WITTICH (Christoph), Professor at Leyden, † 1687: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Hebraeos. Edited by David Hassel. 1692. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. INTRODUCTION. SEC. 1.-THE AUTHOR. HE Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of an unknown writer. The question, by whom it was composed, was already variously answered in ancient times, and has not to the present day been solved in a way which has found general assent. The supposition that the Apostle Paul was its author has obtained the widest currency and the most lasting acceptance. And in reality this supposition must most readily suggest itself, since an unmistakeably Pauline spirit pervades the epistle, and single notices therein, such as the mention of Timothy as a man standing in very close connection with the author (xiii. 23), might appear as indications pointing to Paul. Nevertheless, there is found nothing which could have the force of a constraining proof in favour of this view, and, on the contrary, much which is in most manifest opposition thereto.1 For (1) The testimonies of Christian antiquity in favour of Paul as the author of the epistle are neither so general nor so confident as we must expect, if the epistle had been from the beginning handed down as a work of the Apostle Paul.Not unfavourable to the claim of Paul, but yet by no means decisive, are the judgments of the early Alexandrian Church. Pantaenus, president of the school of catechetes in Alexandria about the middle of the second century, the first from whom Comp. H. Thayer, "Authorship and Canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews," in the Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. xxiv., Andov. 1867, p. 681 ff. MEYER.-HEB. Α an express statement as to the name of the author has come down to us, certainly assigned the epistle to the Apostle Paul. But yet it is to be observed that even he felt called to set aside an objection, which seemed to lie against the justice of this view, namely: that, contrary to the custom of Paul, the author has not, even in an address prefixed to the epistle, mentioned himself by name; whether it was that this difficulty first arose in the mind of Pantaenus himself, or that, in opposition to others who had raised it, he wished to show the invalid nature thereof. (Comp. the notice of Clemens Alexandrinus on Pantaenus, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 14: Ἤδη δέ, ὡς ὁ μακάριος ἔλεγε πρεσβύτερος, ἐπεὶ ὁ κύριος, ἀπόστολος ὢν τοῦ παντοκράτορος, ἀπεστάλη πρὸς Εβραίους, διὰ μετριότητα ὁ Παῦλος, ὡς ἂν εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἀπεσταλμένος, οὐκ ἐγγράφει ἑαυτὸν Ἑβραίων ἀπόστολον διά τε τὴν πρὸς τὸν κύριον τιμὴν διά τε τὸ ἐκ περιουσίας καὶ τοῖς ̔Εβραίοις ἐπιστέλλειν, ἐθνῶν κήρυκα ὄντα καὶ ἀπόστολον.) – Clemens Alexandrinus, too, the disciple of Pantaenus (end of the second and beginning of the third century), makes repeated mention of the epistle as a work of the Apostle Paul (Strom. ii. p. 420, iv. p. 514 sq., ed. Sylburg, Colon. 1688, al.). yet he does not venture to ascribe it in its present form immediately to Paul. Not only is for him, too, the same objection, which his teacher already had undertaken to set aside, still of sufficient weight for him to attempt its removal in a new, though, it is true, equally unsatisfactory manner; but also the un-Pauline character of the language in the epistle does not escape his glance. Rather to Luke than to Paul does the garb of the letter seem to him to point. On this account he assumes that a Hebrew (Aramaic) original writing of Paul forms the substratum of the epistle, but that our present epistle is only a version or adaptation of that original writing by Luke, designed for Hellenes. (Comp. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 14: Καὶ τὴν πρὸς Εβραίους δὲ ἐπιστολὴν Παύλου μέν εἶναί φησι, γεγράφθαι δὲ ̔Εβραίοις ̔Εβραϊκῇ φωνῇ, Λουκᾶν δὲ φιλοτίμως αὐτὴν μεθερμηνεύσαντα ἐκδοῦναι τοῖς Ἕλλησιν· ὅθεν τὸν αὐτὸν χρῶτα εὑρίσκεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ταύτης τε τῆς ἐπιστολῆς καὶ τῶν πράξεων· μὴ προγεγράφθαι δὲ τὸ Παῦλος ἀπόστολος, εἰκότως. Ἑβραίοις But sense. γάρ, φησίν, ἐπιστέλλων πρόληψιν εἰληφόσι κατ' αὐτοῦ καὶ ὑποπτεύουσιν αὐτὸν συνετῶς πάνυ οὐκ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἀπέστρεψεν αὐτοὺς τὸ ὄνομα θείς.) — Equally does Origen (+254) make the Epistle to the Hebrews stand, it is true, in some relation to the Apostle Paul, as he accordingly more than once cites passages therefrom as sayings of Paul (e.g. Exhort. ad Martyr. 44, in Joh., ed. Huet. t. ii. p. 56; ibid. t. iii. p. 64, t. x. p. 162, al.). But not only is he aware that in point of fact deniers of the composition of the epistle by Paul have arisen (οἱ ἀθετοῦντες τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ὡς οὐ Παύλῳ γεγραμμένην, Epist. ad African. c. 9. Comp. also in Matt. xxiii. 27 sq.: Sed pone aliquem abdicare epistolam ad Hebraeos, quasi non Pauli); he too, for his own part, is not able to bring himself to recognise the epistle as a work of Paul in the narrower Only the thoughts of the epistle does he ascribe to Paul; the diction and composition, on the other hand, he denies to be his. Since he admits withal that the contents of the epistle are Pauline, he regards the ancient tradition, which traces it back to Paul, as not unfounded; he has therefore no fault to find if a church looks upon the epistle as the work of Paul. By whom, however, it was in reality composed is, he thinks, known only to God. Tradition, he tells us, speaks sometimes of the Roman bishop Clement, sometimes of Luke, as the author. (Comp. the two fragments of the lost homilies of Origen on the Epistle to the Hebrews, preserved in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 25 : "Οτι ὁ χαρακτὴρ τῆς λέξεως τῆς πρὸς Εβραίους ἐπιγεγραμμένης ἐπιστολῆς οὐκ ἔχει τὸ ἐν λόγῳ ἰδιωτικὸν τοῦ ἀποστόλου, ὁμολογήσαντος ἑαυτὸν ἰδιώτην εἶναι τῷ λόγῳ, τουτέστι τῇ φράσει, ἀλλά ἐστιν ἡ ἐπιστολὴ συνθέσει τῆς λέξεως ἑλληνικωτέρα, πᾶς ὁ ἐπιστάμενος κρίνειν φράσεων διαφορὰς ὁμολογήσαι ἄν· πάλιν τε αὖ ὅτι τὰ νοήματα τῆς ἐπιστολῆς θαυμάσιά ἐστι καὶ οὐ δεύτερα τῶν ἀποστολικῶν ὁμολογουμένων γραμμάτων, καὶ τοῦτο ἂν συμφήσαι είναι ἀληθὲς πᾶς ὁ προςέχων τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῇ ἀποστολικῇ. . . Ἐγὼ δὲ ἀποφαινόμενος εἴποιμ ̓ ἄν, ὅτι τὰ μὲν νοήματα τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐστίν, ἡ δὲ φράσις καὶ ἡ σύνθεσις ἀπομνημονεύσαντός τινος τὰ ἀποστολικὰ καὶ ὡσπερεί σχολιογραφήσαντός τινος τὰ εἰρημένα ὑπὸ τοῦ διδασκάλου. Εἴ τις οὖν ἐκκλησία ἔχει ταύτην τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ὡς Παύλου, αὕτη εὐδοκιμείτω καὶ |