CORINTI, EPISTOLE I E II AI

CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES I and II to the. — Letters addressed by St. Paul to the faithful of the community at Corinth (v.), two of the four major letters in the Pauline corpus. They are the most closely connected with the Apostle’s activity and with the events of the community to which they were sent, yet they are beset with uncertainties regarding the events that provoked them (especially II Cor.).

The first period of Paul’s apostolic work at Corinth, the longest, extends from 50 or 51 to 52 or 53 A.D. Greater precision is not possible, given the uncertain date of his Gallio (v.) in Achaia, a date upon which the chronology of the second missionary journey and much of Paul’s life largely depends.

The Apostle arrived in Corinth after the painful experience at Athens, which led him to adhere firmly to what had always been, even before, the substance of his apostolate: the rugged preaching of the “scandal of the Cross.” For eighteen months he labored at Corinth before being brought before Gallio’s tribunal. The gains were quite limited among the Jewish milieu, but numerous among the pagans. That it was not, however, easy for these Corinthian converts to enter into the spirit and discipline of the new religion, Paul must have well understood during his prolonged stay among them, and he was further confirmed by the news that reached him during his stay at Ephesus in the course of his third missionary journey.

I. FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS

OUTLINE:

I. Occasion

II. Division and Content

III. Date of Composition

IV. Pauline Authenticity.

First of all, the question arises whether this was truly the first letter sent by St. Paul to that community. The problem is raised by 1 Cor 5:9–11, which many today interpret as meaning that the canonical 1 Corinthians was preceded by another letter, which had given rise to the misunderstanding mentioned in the cited text. The faithful at Corinth had understood Paul to be forbidding all dealings with any category of fornicators, which seemed impracticable in a city given over to Corinthian vice.

In the canonical 1 Corinthians, Paul also wishes to correct this rigorist interpretation.

I. OCCASION

1 Corinthians was occasioned by disturbing reports that reached Paul and by a series of questions formulated by the faithful of Corinth in a letter sent to the Apostle through Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus. The information came in part from those of Chloe, i.e., the servants of this woman who must have had commercial dealings with Ephesus, and in part from the delegates of the community themselves. From the former, Paul learned that factions were forming among the faithful, which took their names from his own, from Apollos, and from Cephas (1 Cor 1:12); but it is not excluded that Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus also provided details about the discord afflicting their community. The three, however, may have arrived in Ephesus when 1 Corinthians was already in the process of being written, and they may have contributed only the information on which the letter is based starting from chap. 5: the very grave case of incest, the disputes among the faithful, and the scandal of frequent recourse to pagan tribunals. The rest seems to be a response to the questions addressed to Paul in a letter from the community (1 Cor 7:1); but it is natural that the envoys would have helped to clarify the meaning and scope of the issues and doubts agitating their Church.

The second of the factions took its name from Apollos (v.), who had worked zealously at Corinth while Paul was beginning his long ministry at Ephesus. Many in the community were captivated by the fluent and polished speech of the Alexandrian and by his skill in using the Scriptures. Almost simultaneously, others must have arrived from Jerusalem who gloried in the name of Cephas, whom they set in deliberate opposition to that of Paul. He deserved barely the title of apostle; his teaching was flawed, inasmuch as he made no account of the law given by God to His people. Thus, while those who professed to be “of Paul” and “of Apollos” did not go beyond the limits of a personalism free of doctrinal error, those who proclaimed themselves “of Cephas” were probably guilty of many judicial errors.

Some have conceived the faction of “those of Christ” as the most pernicious of all, inasmuch as, under the pretext that Jesus had emancipated us from the servitude of the law, it would have taught libertine theories, such as those put into practice by the man guilty of incest mentioned in chap. 5, who was regarded by some almost with a sense of pride. But it is highly doubtful that the words “I, however, of Christ” (1:12) constitute the motto of a faction analogous to the others mentioned. Paul does not mention it again explicitly in the course of the letter, and later Clement of Rome would recall only three groups of factions.

Against the spirit of partisanship threatening to tear apart the young community, to stigmatize the incestuous relationship, to correct the abuse of recourse to pagan tribunals, the emancipation of women in religious assemblies, the intemperance in the celebration of the “Lord’s Supper,” and, finally, to answer the many doubts raised by the faithful, Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.

II. DIVISION AND CONTENT

More than according to a logical plan, the various topics in 1 Corinthians follow the occasional order of their presentation.

In addition to the customary prologue (1:1–9: greeting to the faithful, thanksgiving to God) and epilogue (16), two main sections can be distinguished (1:10–6:20 and 7:1–15:58).

1. Correction of vices and abuses (1:10–6:20)

a) Factions in the community at Corinth and their condemnation (1:10–4:21). The factions are denounced and deplored in the name of the unity to be maintained in Christ, the head of the Church (1:10–17), and then the plan of divine wisdom is set forth, which chose the humblest persons and means for its accomplishments, to the confusion of proud human wisdom, in whose name the recipients divide themselves into factions (1:18–31). For this divine wisdom, which is revealed to the “perfect,” the readers were and still are enamored, given their manifestly fleshly nature (2:1–3:4). Since the preachers of the Gospel are merely co-workers of God, to whom different tasks are assigned in the same field of labor, the faithful must guard against undue preferences and, because of empty human wisdom, engage in vain competitions (3:4–13). The section closes with: a moving farewell; the purpose of Timothy’s mission; the announcement of Paul’s own visit (4:14–21).

b) Repression of grave disorders (chaps. 5–6). — The condemnation and punishment of the man guilty of incest (5:1–8) provides the occasion to address public sinners, corrupt members of the community, and to dispel the misunderstanding occasioned by a previous letter (5:9–13). Avoid recourse to pagan tribunals and, if possible, every dispute among the faithful (6:1–7). The reason that impels the Christian to flee impurity is the fact that he is a member of Christ’s mystical body and a temple of the Holy Spirit (6:12–20).

2. Resolution of doubts raised by the community and particular questions (7:1–15:58)

a) Marriage and virginity (7:1–40). Legitimacy, rights and duties, indissolubility of Christian marriage and privilege in favor of the spouse converted to the faith (7:1–24). Virginity is more commendable than marriage, but it is not imposed on anyone (7:25–40).

b) The proper use of meat offered to idols (8:1–11). — In itself, it is lawful to eat the flesh of animals sacrificed to idols (v. IDOLOTTO), since these idols are nothing; yet Christian wisdom imposes consideration for less enlightened consciences (8:1–13). One must not abuse liberty; therefore Paul himself renounces certain prerogatives of his apostolate, doing so as a contribution to the cause of Christ, becoming all things to all men, and subjecting his body to that strict discipline which is the necessary condition for winning the crown of victory (9:1–10:13). In practice: one may not participate in sacrificial feasts, for this would conflict with participation in the Lord’s table; privately, however, meat offered to idols may be eaten, unless charity—which must prevail in all things—requires avoiding scandal to the weak (10:14–11:1).

c) Discipline in religious assemblies (11:2–14:40). — Women must take part with their heads covered (11:2–16). The Eucharistic supper must be celebrated without excess, which offends poor brethren and shows irreverence toward the august mysteries (11:17–34). All charisms are equally commendable when considered in light of their source (the Holy Spirit) and their purpose (the profit of the community); yet, when particular functions are considered, some are more noble than others, though all contribute—as the various members of a body—to the common good (12:1–31). Above every charismatic gift stands charity, the animating principle of all, without which even the noblest gifts are devoid of value. These gifts, moreover, are destined to cease in the life to come, as will faith and hope, while charity alone will endure eternally (12:31b–13:13). A comparison between prophecy and glossolalia shows that prophecy is to be preferred to glossolalia (14:1–33). Women must keep silent in the assemblies of the community; and all things must be done with decorum and in order (14:34–40).

d) The resurrection of the dead (ch. 15). — Once the resurrection of Christ is admitted—being the foundation of our faith—one cannot doubt the possibility that the dead will return to life. The pledge of our resurrection is found in our incorporation into Christ, the head from which the members cannot be separated (15:1–34). A series of analogies drawn from nature illustrate the manner of the resurrection. The body will be transformed from a passible state to a glorious one, as befits the complete triumph over the tyrannical dominion of death and sin (15:35–58).

In the epilogue (ch. 16), practical suggestions for the collection (16:1–4); announcement of Paul’s imminent visit to Corinth (16:5–9); recommendations in favor of Timothy, Apollos, and the envoys of the community (16:10–18); greetings, authentication by the author, and final blessing (16:19–24).

III. DATE OF COMPOSITION

The date most commonly accepted is A.D. 56, when Paul’s work in Asia was already well underway and met with strong hostility (16:9), implying a considerable period of residence in Ephesus. In the spring of 56 (Easter seems to be alluded to in 5:7; Pentecost is not far off: 16:8), the second year of work in this city was drawing to a close, and splendid prospects were opening in Asia; yet incipient reactions were also noted, which would later erupt in the tumult of the silversmiths (Acts 19:23–40).

E. B. Allo (p. LXXXVI ff.), following F. Bachmann, believes that 1 Corinthians was written in 55, more precisely after the three months of preaching in the synagogue, when Paul, turning to the pagans, glimpsed the abundant harvest he might reap (1 Cor 16:8 ff.). But Paul does not say that the great door opened precisely at the moment he wrote: the verb he uses (ἀνέσχον) can indicate an event that occurred in the distant past, the effects of which continued. Moreover, if the “door” had just “opened,” it would be hard to understand why Paul planned to remain in Ephesus only until Pentecost, which could not have been far off. If, instead, the work had been well underway for some time, it is understandable that he thought of leaving Ephesus soon to return to the capital of Achaia, from which unsettling news was coming. All things considered, the spring of 56 or 57 seems the most satisfactory date (cf. P. Benoit, in Revue biblique, 44 [1935], pp. 610 ff.).

IV. PAULINE AUTHENTICITY

The Pauline authenticity of 1 Corinthians seems beyond dispute, so marked and unmistakable are the characteristics that reveal the personality of the Apostle Paul. Only the radicals of the Dutch school have dared to deny, wholesale, the authenticity of this—as well as the other major Pauline letters.

Alongside the allusions in the Didache and St. Ignatius, St. Clement of Rome provides a very clear reference to 1 Corinthians as a letter written by Paul under circumstances similar to those in which the Bishop of Rome was writing. Following him are St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr, the Letter to Diognetus, the Muratorian Fragment, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian.

The objections raised against the literary quality of 1 Corinthians (perhaps Paul was tacitly responding to the vain presumption of his Corinthian converts) fade before the undeniable similarities in language and style with Galatians and Romans, and above all before the fundamental harmony of its content. Moreover, 1 Corinthians is in perfect agreement with the narrative of Acts (cf. 1 Cor 4:17 ff. and 16:5 with Acts 19:2, 21; 1 Cor 1:14 with Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 3:6 with Acts 18:27 ff.). Yet perhaps the most decisive internal indication is the full authority with which the author of 1 Corinthians speaks—a authority that could belong to none other than Paul, the founder and father of that community.

II. SECOND CORINTHIANS

OUTLINE:

I. Occasion and date of composition

II. Division and content

III. Pauline authenticity

IV. Integrity.

I. OCCASION AND DATE OF COMPOSITION

To understand the motives behind 2 Corinthians, one would need to resolve several hotly debated points, particularly: did Paul visit Corinth between the first and second letters? Furthermore, did Paul’s epistolary activity on behalf of this community consist solely of the two canonical letters, or is there another lost writing besides the probable precanonical letter hinted at in 1 Cor 5:9–11?

Whereas in the past no one thought of an intermediate letter between 1 and 2 Corinthians, and very few saw in 1 Cor 5:9 an allusion to a letter prior to our first canonical one, modern scholars generally accept the latter point, and many believe that a letter between 1 and 2 Corinthians—the “letter of many tears”—is indispensable for understanding much of the content of 2 Corinthians and Paul’s various attitudes toward the community.

Among modern scholars, the view that the author made a visit to Corinth between the first and second canonical letters also finds much favor; this visit is thought to be the occasion of the letter written “with many tears.” Indeed, it seems that the “third” visit of Paul, repeatedly mentioned in 2 Cor 12:14; 13:1, cannot be explained by a double visit prior to 1 Corinthians: one would have to suppose that the punishment of an offense connected with one of these visits was suspended for several years, whereas 2 Corinthians refers to it as a very recent event. That the offense in 2 Corinthians concerns the same incest mentioned in 1 Cor 5:1–5 is increasingly rejected, especially because of the personal injury that characterizes the grave offense addressed in 2 Corinthians.

The hypothesis of both the letter and the intermediate journey seems sufficiently well founded. After receiving from Timothy—who in this instance was overly optimistic—the good news brought back from a mission to Corinth, Paul would have left his field of work for a few weeks. During this brief visit by Paul, the offense was committed that struck not only him but also the community (2 Cor 2:5).

The “letter of tears,” which Paul sent on his return to Ephesus, did not fail in its purpose. After a subsequent mission to Corinth, Titus was able to reassure Paul about the state of that community. The meeting with Titus, so ardently longed for by Paul (2 Cor 2:12ff.; 7:5ff.), took place in Macedonia (probably Philippi) rather than Troas, as had been planned, because Paul had to leave Ephesus earlier than expected due to the riot of the silversmiths.

Once the most painful period in the relationship between Paul and the Corinthian faithful had been overcome—marked by the community’s full recognition of his apostolic authority and the exemplary punishment of the offender—the Second Letter to the Corinthians aims above all to be a letter of reconciliation between father and children. In it, the Apostle repeatedly expresses his unchanged affection. This is essentially the case up to the end of chapter 9, though even in the first nine chapters there are vigorous polemical passages and, at times, appeals intended to dispel lingering misunderstandings and to overturn the stubborn positions of the agitators. These opponents, though increasingly ignored by the faithful, continued to hurl their venomous barbs at Paul, accusing him, among other things, of fickleness and irresponsibility in making promises he could or would not keep.

Given this context, it is not difficult to establish the date of composition. The events to be intercalated between 1 Corinthians (spring of 56 or 57) and 2 Corinthians (Timothy’s return, Paul’s journey, Titus’s mission and the intermediate letter [?], Titus’s return) must have taken several months, leading us toward the end of 56 (or 57), the last winter of the third missionary journey. This letter and the subsequent stay in Corinth definitively dispelled the clouds that had long weighed over the beloved community.

II. DIVISION AND CONTENT

Even more than 1 Corinthians, it is difficult to outline a logical structure for 2 Corinthians. Born of a moment of intense passion—perhaps the most intense of Paul’s apostolic life—the letter is a spontaneous and impetuous work in which pain and joy, the tenderness of a father and the severity of a judge, deep depression and bold courage, personal apology and sudden luminous doctrinal insights, concern for a full past and serene prospects for the future all alternate. One must follow Paul as he shifts abruptly from one thought or feeling to another, from the calmest affection to harsh tones, and return with him to topics already touched upon. In this way, one in some sense relives the inner drama of this letter, which, more than any other, reveals the multifaceted aspects of Paul’s temperament.

The most common division, based on the prevailing subject matter, is into three parts, preceded by a prologue and followed by an epilogue.

The prologue (1:1–11) reflects the circumstances and state of mind of Paul, who gives thanks to God for deliverance from a most severe trial endured for the sake of his apostolic ministry and the faithful.

1. Explanations regarding the background of 2 Corinthians, namely: a general defense of Paul’s conduct (1:12–7:16).
a) Relations with the community after 1 Corinthians (1:12–2:17). Confident in the restoration of harmony, Paul explains that he substituted a letter for the announced visit, not out of fickleness or inconsistency, but out of indulgence (1:12–2:4). It was necessary to punish the one who had offended his apostolic authority; but since the offender has shown repentance, he should not be excluded further from the religious life of the community (2:5–11). After mentioning that, concerned about the condition of the Corinthian community, he had abandoned the promising prospects of apostolic work in Troas, Paul sketches an apology aimed at demonstrating his fidelity as a minister of the Gospel (2:12–17).
b) Paul’s self-defense (3:1–7:4). Paul expresses his bold confidence, grounded in the sublimity of the evangelical ministry. His living letter is his faithful (3:1ff.). He has been entrusted with the ministry of the Spirit, not of the letter (3:4–11), which frees him from resorting to the “veil” as Moses did—a symbol of the inferiority of the Old Testament compared to the New, the manifest revelation of God (3:12–4:6). There is a vivid contrast between the natural weakness of the apostles and the supernatural strength and efficacy of their mission. Following the example of Christ, they face every sacrifice and even death itself, their gaze fixed on the future recompense (4:7–5:10). The example of Christ, who sacrificed himself for the salvation of all, is a pressing motive to work for the “new creation” and the “ministry of reconciliation,” through which Paul daily annihilates himself (5:11–6:10). Let the readers not live like the Gentiles (6:11–7:1).
c) Confident relations with the faithful (7:2–16). Paul, always at ease regarding his conduct toward the Corinthians and proud of them (7:2ff.), is lifted from deep sorrow by the good news brought by Titus and feels full trust restored between himself and the beloved community (7:5–16).

3. The collection for the poor in Jerusalem (8:1–9:15)

Let the example of the Macedonian faithful, so generous in their poverty, spur the Corinthians to complete what they have long undertaken (8:1–15). Titus and the two delegates sent with him for the collection are praised for their service to the Corinthian community as well (8:16–9:5). The fruits of generosity are God’s blessing and the effective prayer of the recipients (9:6–15).

3. Polemic against declared adversaries (10:1–13:10).
a) Negative aspect, namely the refutation of accusations (10:1–18). Paul does not act according to the dictates of worldly prudence but is animated by the spirit of Christ: strong from afar and near, in writing and in speech (10:1–11); nor does he boast beyond measure like his adversaries, but according to a divine rule and in the Lord (10:12–18).
b) Positive aspect. Paul has no lack of grounds for boasting, being in no way inferior to others (11:1–12:18). — If there is any inferiority in Paul compared to the “super-apostles,” it lies in his renunciation of his rights so as not to burden the community (11:1–15). Nor does he lack merits and extraordinary gifts, though these are counterbalanced by the “thorn in the flesh” that teaches him practically how every gift comes from God, who chooses weak human instruments for his works (11:16–12:10). This defense should rather be made by the Corinthians, for whom Paul has already done so much and is ready to do even more, even at the cost of receiving less affection in return the more he loves them (12:11–18). In his next visit to Corinth, Paul will act against the guilty; yet he hopes not to be forced to use the full extent of his apostolic authority (12:19–13:10).

In the epilogue (13:11ff.), final exhortations (11), two brief affectionate greetings (12), and a solemn blessing (13).

### III. PAULINE AUTHENTICITY

As regards external proofs, it should be noted that 2 Corinthians was probably used by St. Polycarp; it inspired the author of the Letter to Diognetus; it is cited by Theophilus of Antioch and St. Hippolytus. Under the name of Paul it is explicitly cited by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the Muratorian Fragment, to limit ourselves to the most ancient testimonies. That 2 Corinthians is less frequently cited should not be surprising, given that it is less doctrinal and more personal. From this, however, arises that complex of internal indications which has led the great majority of critics, even non-Catholic ones, to recognize in it the unmistakable seal of Paul. Whoever speaks in such a decisive and imperative manner to the faithful of Corinth reveals, without any possibility of doubt, his particular position with respect to the community, of which he is the founder and father, and, when necessary, also its judge. No other letter portrays so vividly the character of Paul, the impetuosity of his sentiments—so easily shifting from the most vibrant enthusiasm to depression—and his stubborn attachment to his spiritual children, even when they show coldness or outright hostility toward him. Moreover, 2 Corinthians fits so closely into the most complicated period of Paul’s apostolate that no forger would have found it easy to undertake such an inventive effort, nor would any forger have dared to present Paul in the compromising light in which his adversaries depict him.

For this reason, only the few radicals mentioned by C. and some other isolated figures have dared to challenge the authenticity of this letter, the most Pauline of the Pauline epistles.

### IV. INTEGRITY

For a certain number of modern critics, 2 Corinthians is not a single, spontaneous work but rather a composite of several letters written under different circumstances and later artificially joined together by an editor. Thus, to limit ourselves to one of the most representative scholars, C. Clemen (*Paulus, sein Leben und Werken*, I: *Untersuchung*, Giessen 1904, p. 85) discerned three letters: 1) 6:14–7:1; 2) 2:10,1–13,10; 3) 1:1–6:13; 7:2–9:15; 13:11–13.

It is not difficult to defend the integrity of 2 Corinthians up to chapter 9, demonstrating the unfoundedness of these fragmentary theories. More serious difficulties arise with chapters 10–13, which seem to reflect a state of mind profoundly different from that depicted in the preceding chapters. Here, in essence, lies the crux of the difficulty. Among the hypotheses advanced to resolve this thorny problem—both for the historical framing and the interpretation of 2 Corinthians—it has been proposed to consider these four chapters as the letter “written in tears,” composed by Paul after the grave affront to his apostolic authority. Yet it seems possible to explain in another way the undeniable difference in tone found in this final section: the sudden harshness of the language, at times even caustic, the intensely polemical tone that brings us back to painful undercurrents in the relationship between the Apostle and the community. In any case, one might suppose that bad news had reached him again from Achaia during the drafting of the letter, which may even have been composed in stages. Witty but not serious is the remark of H. Lietzmann (p. 138) that the enigma might be explained by a sleepless night between 2 Corinthians 9 and 10.

Without claiming to resolve the problem, it must be observed that the accusations against which Paul polemicizes are, on the whole, the same as those treated more calmly in the preceding chapters. The difference lies more in tone than in the substance of the polemic. Paul may have been led, so to speak, by tactical reasons to reserve for the end this vehement attack on his adversaries and the energetic call for a decisive stance from the community. One thing is quite clear: if there is any part of 2 Corinthians written by Paul without tears in his eyes, it is precisely the section where one would wish to see the letter “written with many tears.”

The manuscript tradition shows no trace of the alleged editorial work by which 2 Corinthians would have been assembled.

---

**

Among modern commentators: R. Cornely, *Commentarius in S. Pauli Apostoli epistolas*, II: *Prior Epistola ad Corinthios*, Paris 1890; 2nd ed. II, 1909; III: *Epistolae ad Corinthios altera et ad Galatas*, II, 1892; 2nd ed. II, 1907; M. Sales, *La Sacra Bibbia, Nuovo Testamento*, II, Turin 1914, pp. 103–237; F. S. Gutjahr, *Die zweite Briefe an die Korinther*, in *Die Briefe des heiligen Apostels Paulus*, II, 2nd ed., Graz and Vienna 1921–22 (1 Cor.); II, 1917 (2 Cor.); J. Sickenberger, *Die Briefe des heiligen Paulus an die Korinther und Römer*, in *Die heilige Schrift des Neuen Testaments*, 4th ed., VI, Bonn 1932, pp. 1–167; E. B. Allo, *Saint Paul, Première Épître aux Corinthiens*, Paris 1934; id., *Saint Paul, Seconde Épître aux Corinthiens* (Verbum Salutis, 13), II, 1946; P. C. Spica, *Épîtres aux Corinthiens*, in *La Sainte Bible* of Pirot-Clamer, II, II, 1948, pp. 151–396. Non-Catholic: A. Robertson–A. Plummer, *A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians*, in *The International Critical Commentary*, Edinburgh 1911; 2nd ed. II, 1914; A. Plummer, *A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians*, in op. cit., II, 1915; Ph. Bachmann, *Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther* (Kommentar zum N. T. von Th. Zahn, 7), 4th ed., Leipzig 1936; id., *Der zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther* (ibid., 8), 4th ed., II, 1922; H. Lietzmann, *An die Korinther I, II*, in *Handbuch zum N. T.*, 3rd ed., Tübingen 1931.

On specific questions: E. Golla, *Zwischenreise und Zwischenbrief. Eine Untersuchung der Frage, ob der Apostel Paulus zwischen dem ersten und zweiten Korintherbrief eine Reise nach Korinth unternommen und einen uns verlorengegangenen Brief an die Korinther geschrieben habe* (Bibliothek Studien, 20, II, Freiburg in Br. 1922); T. W. Manson, *St Paul in Ephesus: The Corinthian correspondence*, in *Bulletin of the John Rylands Library*, 26 (1941–42), pp. 101–20, 327–41; L. Cerfaux, *L'Église des Corinthiens* (Témoins de Dieu, 7), Paris 1947; R. Hundstorfer, *Die Adressaten des ersten Korintherbriefes. Eine Versuch, die Empfänger dieses Briefes näher zu bestimmen*, Kremsmünster 1948.

Theodoric of Castel San Pietro