[1210] See notes at the end of the section.

[1210] See notes at the end of the section.

[1211] Heb. 9:8, "while as the first tabernacle is yet standing" (tes protes skenes echouses stasin); 9:6, "the priests go in continually" (eisiasin, not went in, as in the E. V.); 8:4; 13:10; 6:8; 8:13; 10:25, 27; 12:27. Those who assign the composition to a time after the destruction of Jerusalem, deprive the present tenses of their natural import and proper effect.

[1212] The charge of partial ignorance of the Jewish ritual is unfounded, and can therefore not be made an argument either for or against the Pauline authorship. In the genuine text of Heb. 10:11, the high priest is not mentioned, but the priest (hiereus), and in 7:27 the high priest is not asserted to offer daily sacrifice, but to need daily repentance. The altar of incense is placed in the holy of holies, 9:4; but this seems to have been a current opinion, which is also mentioned in the Apocalypse of Baruch. See Harnack in "Studien und Kritiken" for 1876, p. 572, and W. R. Smith in " Enc. Brit.," xi., 606.

[1213] See Carpzov, Sacrae Exercitationes in Ep. ad Heb. ex Philone Alex. (Helmstadii, 1750); Riehm, l.c., pp. 9 sqq.; Hilgenfeld, Einleit., p. 384; and Pfleiderer, Paulinismus.

[1214] The Epistle is called a logos parakleseos , Heb. 13:22; comp. 12:5; 6:18

[1215] See note II. at the close.

[1216] So also DeWette, Tholuck, Thiersch, Delitzsch, Lünemann, Riehm, Moll (in Lange's Com.), Langen, Weiss.

[1217] So Oecumenius, Lightfoot, Lange; also Grimm (sub verbo): "Omnes de Judaeis sive aramaice sive graece loquentibus Christiani."

[1218] Ebrard. Moulton, on the contrary, thinks that some other church in Palestine is addressed, and that Jerusalem is excluded by Heb. 2:3.

[1219] Wieseler (who adds an unlikely reference to the temple of Onias in Leontopolis), Credner, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Köstlin, Reuss, Bunsen, Conybeare and Howson, and Plumptre.

[1220] Von Hofmann.

[1221] Wetstein, Alford, Holtzmann, Kurtz, Zahn; also Renan, who thinks (L'Antechrist. p. 211) that the Ep. was written by Barnabas in Ephesus, and addressed to the church in Rome; hence it was first known in Rome.

[1222] A. B. Davidson (Ep. to the Hebr., 1882, p. 18).

[1223] Zahn refers Heb. 10:32-34 to the Neronian persecution; but this is excluded by 12:4, "Ye have not yet resisted unto blood" (mechri ahimatos). Harnack finds also traces of the Domitian persecution. Still more unlikely.

[1224] Lardner, Thiersch, Lindsay, Bullock (in Smith's B. Dict., Am. ed., II., 1028), and others, assign the Epistle to a.d. 63; DeWette, Moll, and Lange to between 62 and 66 (between the death of James and the outbreak of the Jewish war); Ebrard to 62; Wieseler (Chronol, des Ap. Zeitalters, p. 519) to July, 64; Stuart and Tholuck to about 64; Weiss to 65 ("bald nach der Mitte der sechziger Jahre"); Hilgenfeld to between 64 and 66; Davidson (Introd., revised ed., I. 222) to 66; Ewald to 67; Renan and Kay to 65. On the other hand, Zahn gives as the date a.d. 80, Holtzmann and Harnack about 90, Volkmar and Keim, 116-118. These late dates are simply impossible, not only for intrinsic reasons and the allusion to Timothy, but also because Clement of Rome, who wrote about 95, shows a perfect familiarity with Hebrews.

[1225] The inference of the place from hoi apo tes Italias Heb. 13:24, is uncertain, since in the epistolary style it may imply that the writer was at that time out of Italy, or in Italy (which would be more distinctly expressed by en Italia orhoi ex ). The brethren may have been fugitives from Italy (so Bleek). But the latter view seems more natural, and is defended by Theodoret, who knew Greek as his mother tongue. Tholuck and Ebrard quote the phrases hoi apo ges and hoi apo thalasses, travellers by land and sea, and from Polybius, hoi apo tes Alexandreias basileis, the Alexandrian kings. Still more to the point is Pseudo-Ignatius Ad. Her. 8, quoted by Zahn (see his ed. of Ign., p. 270, 12): aspazontai se ... pantes hoi apo Philippon en christo, oten kai epesteila soi.

[1226] The Sinaitic MS. and C have the subscription "to the Hebrews," A adds "from Rome," K "from Italy." Sam. Davidson dates it from Alexandria, Renan from Ephesus, where he thinks Barnabas was at that time with some fugitive Italians, while Timothy was imprisoned perhaps at Corinth (L'Antechrist. p. 210).

[1227] For the patristic testimonies, I refer to the collection in Charteris, Canonicity, pp. 272-288; for a candid and exhaustive discussion of the whole question, to Bleek's large Com., I., 82-272; also to Alford's Com., vol iv., Part I., pp. 1-62

[1228] Von Hofmann (of Erlangen) is almost the only one in Germany; Bishop Wordsworth and Dr. Kay in England. Among the older defenders of the Pauline authorship we mention Owen (1668), Mill (1707), Carpzov (1750), Bengel (1752). Sykes (1755), Andr. Cramer (1757), Storr (1789), and especially the learned and acute Roman Catholic scholar, Hug, in his Einleitung.

[1229] Dr. Biesenthal has, by a retranslation of the Ep. into Hebrew, endeavored to prove this theory in "Das Trostschreiben des Ap. Paulus an die Hebraeer,"Leipz., 1878. But, of course, this is no argument any more than Delitzsch's Hebrew translation of the entire New Testament. Such happy phrases as polumeros kai polutropos (Heb.1:1) and emathen eph' hon epathen ten hupakoen (5:8) cannot be reproduced in Hebrew at all.

[1230] sunthesei tes lexeos ellenik-iote-ira. Ap. Euseb. H. E. VI. 25.

[1231] tis de ho grapsas ten epistolen, to men alethes theos hoiden.

[1232] "Pauli Apostoli epistolae tredecim, ejusdem ad Hebraeos una."

[1233] Calvin: "Scriptor unum se ex apostolorum discipulis profitetur, quod est a Paulina consuetudine longe alienum." And on Heb. 2:3, "Hic locus indicio est; epistolam a Paulo non fuisse compositam,"etc.

[1234] As Calvin expresses it: "Ipsa docendi ratio et stilus alium quam Paulum esse satis testantur." On this point see especially Riehm's valuable Lehrbegriff, etc., and the respective sections in the works on the N. T. Theology; also Kurtz's Com., pp. 24 sqq. The parallelisms which Dr. Kay sets against this argument in the Speaker's Com., pp. 14 sqq., only prove what nobody denies, the essential agreement of Hebrews with the Pauline Epistles

[1235] See the proof in Bleek, vol. I. 338-375. Conveniently ignored in the Speaker's Com., p. 13.

[1236] Of the other friends of Paul, Timothy is excluded by the reference to him in Heb. 13:23. Mark, Demas, Titus, Tychicus, Epaphroditus, Epaphras, Aristarchus, Aquila, Jesus Justus have never been brought forward as candidates. Silvanus, or Silas, is favorably mentioned by Böhme, Mynster, and Riehm (890 sqq.), on account of his prominent position, Acts 15:22, 27, 34, 40; 16:19; 1 Pet. 5:12.

[1237] Tertullian, Ullmann, Wieseler, Thiersch, Ritschl, Renan, Zahn. W. R. Smith (in the "Enc. Brit.") likewise leans to the Barnabas hypothesis.

[1238] Clement of Alexandria (who, however, regarded Luke only, and wrongly, as translator), Calvin, Grotius, Crell, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Döllinger. Ebrard supposes that Luke wrote the Epistle at the request and in the name of Paul, who suggested the general plan and leading ideas. This is the most plausible form of the Luke hypothesis, but does not account for the doctrinal differences.

[1239] This linguistic argument has been overdone by Delitzsch and weakened by fanciful or far-fetched analogies. See the strictures of Lünemann, pp. 24-31.

[1240] Mentioned as a subjective conjecture by Origen (Klemes ho genomenos episkopos Rhomaion egrapse ten epistolen) alongside with Luke. Renewed by Erasmus and Bisping.

[1241] Luther, Osiander, Norton, Semler, Bleek, Tholuck, Credner, Reuss, Bunsen, Hilgenfeld, Lange, Moll, Kendrick, Alford, Lünemann, Kurtz, Samuel Davidson, A. B. Davidson. The Apollos hypothesis has been the most popular until, within the last few years, Renan, Zahn, and W. Robertson Smith have turned the current again in favor of the Barnabas hypothesis. Riehm, after a full and judicious discussion, wavers between Apollos and Silvanus, but ends with Origen's modest confession of ignorance (p. 894).

[1242] Ep. ad Cor., c. 47.