A critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans by Prof. W. Sanday and the Hon. A. Khidlama. Edinburgh, 1895

This work, which belongs to the equal diligence of an emeritus Oxford professor (cf. about him in J. Vernon Bartlet in The Expository Times for February 1896) and a young talented bachelor (consisting of a “tutor” at one of the Oxford colleges), is only a separate issue from the whole series of “International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures.” The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament", undertaken by the Edinburgh firm of Clarks, edited by S. K. Driver (Oxford), A. Plummer (Durham) and Ch. Aug. Briggs (New Work) in the likeness of similar courses by Meyer, Holtzman, etc. But, judging by the voluminous work named (in CHII 450 pages), the scale here is taken much wider, and the entire publication is apparently designed for extensive research. This is clear from the briefest overview of the content of the work in question. In the lengthy "introduction" we find the following matters: Rome in 58 A.D.; Jews in Rome; Roman Church; time and place, occasion and purpose; content; language and style; text; literary history; intactness; exegetical literature. Then there is a gradual commentary, with the most important issues subjected to special and often detailed analysis. These are: theological terminology Rom. I, 1 – 7; the word δ ί καιος and related ones; the meaning of the term “faith” in the New Testament and in some Jewish writings; God's truth; Paul's depiction of the pagan world; use of the book Wisdom in Chapter I; the death of Christ as a sacrifice; the story of Abraham in St. Paul and St. Jacob; Jewish doctrine of circumcision; the place of the resurrection of the dead in the teaching of St. Paul; society (ΝΒ: according to the Richlev theory) or personality is its own object of justification; the idea of ​​reconciliation or propitiation; the action of the fall of Adam according to Jewish theology; Paul's concept of sin and fall; the history of Paul's interpretation of the doctrine of δικα ί ωσις, the doctrine of mysterious union with Christ; internal struggle; look of St. Paul on the Old Testament law; the person and work of the Holy Spirit; “the aspiration of the creature”; Israel's advantages; punctuation Rome. IX, 5; divine election; divine dominion in the Old Testament; the power and rights of God as Creator; the relationship between Pavlova's argumentation in Chap. IX in the book of Wisdom S.; history of interpretation of Rom. IX, 6–29; argumentation IX, 30–X, 21: human responsibility; use V. Z. at St. Paul; the doctrine of the "remnant"; the merits of fathers; argument in Rom. Chapters IX–XI; philosophy history of St. Paul; salvation of the individual: free will and predestination; spiritual gifts; church and civil power; history of the word ἀ γ ά πη; Christian teaching about love; the early Christian belief in the imminence of the “parousia” (the coming of Christ); attitude ch. XII–XIV to the Gospels; sect for party, understood in Rom. XIV; Aquila and Priscilla. From this fragmentary list, which by no means covers the entire content of the book, it is clear that there is special wealth in the material sense. This is its first and undoubted advantage, and along with it it should be noted that each subject is examined here from different angles and illuminated from all possible points of view. This means that diversity also has completeness, which belongs to very rare and happy combinations. At the same time - strict abstinence from dogmatic prejudices and school tendencies. “Our goal,” say the authors (pp. VII – VIII), “is historical, not dogmatic... First of all, we tried to understand St. Paul and understand him not only in relation to his surroundings, but also in relation to the unchangeable facts of human nature on which (?) his system rests. It is possible that the theses we have obtained at another time and by other hands will be applied for dogmatic purposes; however, final conclusions about Christian teaching were not our intentions.” And as a result, they maintain their gaze firmly and unswervingly. Only occasionally does a slight deviation appear beyond the demarcation line of objective contemplation (for example, regarding the ideas of A. Ritschl), but in general a calmly historical tone prevails. Nevertheless, the dogmatic soil does not harbor volcanic forces that foreshadow the eruption of dry confessionalism or critical rationalism. To our particular pleasure, we even encounter something that rightly arouses the sympathy of those in the know for young English theologians (see Orthodox’s article “The Norwich Congress” in the November book of the Russian Review for 1895). Thus, Sanday and Hidlam recognize “the most basic concepts in St. Paul – the divine lordship of Christ, the meaning of His death, the essence of the sacraments.” That these words are extremely significant, this already shows the bewilderment into which the venerable prof. fell as a result of them. Salmond (see his review in The Critical Review, October 1895, p. 374) 1 . What has been said determines the main character of the commentary. Its compilers strive for historical explanation, indicating the true position of the message in their era through its relationship to modern Jewish thought and growing Christian teaching. At the same time, his place in Christian literature is sufficiently outlined from the perspective of the questions that arose at that time and the decisions given by the Apostle. For this purpose, purely Jewish and apocryphal monuments are also used. This fully justifies the “historical” dignity of the work and thereby emphasizes that the not entirely successful epithet “critical” is not particularly important and only testifies to the scientifically objective independence of the commentary. Working together and with both hands, the authors achieved both comprehensiveness and thoroughness. It is difficult to point out a point that was not at least outlined by them. Perhaps it is not at all easier to name a department where they would not check on their own and introduce something new in the sense of addition, confirmation, further development, limitation, etc. In any case, nothing is rented without interest and without consideration, and everything is returned with interest: apparently, these are not slaves with one talent! its scope is not limited to the theological-exegetical sphere, but also covers all related areas - and everywhere we often find an amazing abundance even in details - philological, historical, geographical, orographic, etc. We know enough that they tried to promote it into the Russian “treasury”. To our regret, it turned out to be shamefully meager, and this only once again demonstrates what the detective zeal for confessional purity leads to, where the right faith is mistakenly and carelessly subordinated to a limited, testing mind, where it is in vain to forget that from doctoral and master's theses no heresies or schisms arose, and in the smooth expanse of our scientific “simplicity” the stunda spills over into a wide sea, where, finally, the basic principle is unjustly trampled upon, that without decent there is and never will be good... However, this is à propos. Closer to the point, the named authors still managed to get acquainted with the work of the late bishop. Theophan and gave a successful description of him, and in one place (p. 271) they cite and analyze his opinions about Rome. IX, 6 – 29. They owe all this to the courtesy of the foremost expert in England on ecclesiastical Russia in its past and present, Mr. W. Birkbeck. Can one really regret that the latter did not inform them about the work of Prof. G.A. Voskresensky about the Slavic text of the Epistle to the Romans, meanwhile he has a sufficient command of the Church Slavonic language, like some others from Oxford (for example, Messrs. Bebb and Morfill). In conclusion of the review, it is necessary to mention that - contrary to the laudable custom of the Russians - the book is equipped with good indexes of names and words in Latin and Greek, and additions have been made to the list of the latter from the latest Notes on Epistles of St. Paul of blessed memory Limefoot and Bibelstudien A. Deisman. We would have sinned against scientific objectivity and would not have paid due scientific attention if we had not noted differentiating shadows against the general light background. Of course, we are talking only about the most important and essential things, without going into special arguments and without touching on details. From this subtle point of view, which is quite consistent with the tasks of the work itself, all its advantages also have downsides. We mentioned above the material content of the work, where each subject is understood in a wide variety of relationships. Today, publishers have preferred to conduct their argument—simultaneously—in several ways, and on all scales. Hence, they have condensed reviews, divisions, subdivisions, summary generalizations, paraphrases, notes in large and small print, replacing one another. All this, of course, contributes to the comprehensiveness of the coverage, but of necessity it gives the book an almost poetic diversity, although I would not dare to call it chaotic. At the same time, naturally, the logical sequence in the disclosure of the Apostle’s thoughts is not a little disrupted, which can be considered separately and in detail only when they are established on a principled basis and in relation to each other. It is no less clear that in this manner, the specially analyzed points are not exhausted to the end. Striving for the philological accuracy of Ellicott, the authors rightly side with Lightfoot not unconditionally, because his commentary is somewhat poor and dry, and the accompanying “dissertations” are always beautiful and often inimitable. It would seem to us that in transforming this method we need to go further and introduce the most important thing into the interpretation itself, leaving special related issues for dissertation analysis. Historical objectivism is also not without its inevitable weaknesses. The compilers wish to do justice to everything and to find a legitimate and reconciling balance everywhere, if we are not talking about any pseudo-critical extreme. Therefore, their personal judgment is fragmented in the mass of approved and semi-rejected opinions and loses its definiteness, distinctness and prominence. This trait is most evident in dogmatically controversial problems, but in other cases the individual typicality of Sendai and Hidlam is shrouded in a fluctuating haze. For this reason, the reader often finds himself in the hesitant thoughts of a traveler before different roads with fear of losing his “gum position”... About works of this kind, Prof. Salmond has well observed that “no matter how much has been written about the book of Romans, there seems no need for apology for adding a new commentary to the long list of existing interpretations. Each subsequent worker adds something to what others have done, sees his share of the truth and recognizes a limited part of the experience contained in him; but the message itself remains inexhaustible, always revealing new points to the reverent eye, revealing itself gradually at every new crisis in the history of the church or in the life of an individual, always demanding fresh consideration, always rewarding scientific research for the aid of piety" (The Critical Review, October 1895, p. 373) 2. We have seen how much and fruitfully Sendey and Hidlam worked, and we will not particularly argue with an authoritative critic if he places their publication at the head of the English commentaries and, not finding an equal in the literature after the publication of the original Meyer, gives him a predominant place in the boundless field of exegetical science (ibid., pp. 373. 377; cf. and Prof. Marcus Dods in “The Expositor” 1896.11, p. 164–155). For our part, we can directly and confidently say that this book is quite worthy of a learned library of scientists and in the richest collection it will be closer to alpha than to omega. Prof.'s suspicion Marcus Dods was not motivated by anything in the puritanical inclinations of the authors (“The Expositor” 1896, II, p. 155) and was hardly fundamental. Of course, Principal F. H. Chase (in a review known to us only from an advertisement in The Critical Review 1896, no. I) went too far and not at all in moderation, “welcoming in this work an epoch-making contribution to the study of St. Paul." Such pompous praise would be a very bad recommendation for the day of English theological literature, where such “epochs” are possible, and is always more sickening and harmful than harshly critical censure... Russian “bibliographers” and “reviewers” ​​need to remember this plaintiff more often and more firmly. You might be interested in: