HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO. — The final (14th) letter in the Pauline epistolary collection, addressed, according to most scholars, to Jewish Christians. In various respects it differs from the others, raising problems that criticism has not yet resolved.
SUMMARY:
I. Literary character
II. Content and doctrinal characteristics
III. Author
IV. Canonicity
V. Recipients, purpose, and date of composition.I. LITERARY CHARACTER
The Epistle to the Hebrews has its own distinctive and unmistakable literary character.It lacks certain epistolary elements that are almost constant in the Pauline letters: address, greeting and benediction, and an initial contact with the community to which it is addressed. This community emerges, at times rather schematically, only in the course of the writing. The opening verses (1:1–4), which are sometimes regarded as a prologue, constitute a decisive entry into the heart of the subject. At the end, although there is a general greeting (13:24), wishes for spiritual prosperity (13:20 f.) and for grace (13:25), signs of intimacy are scarce: there is little personal news (13:19, 23); no greetings are sent by or to specific individuals: the “leaders” are greeted as a group (13:24), just as “those from Italy” send their greetings as a group (ibid.). It cannot be said, however, that the writer does not have a definite community before him, or that he is not sufficiently familiar with its religious background.
The Epistle to the Hebrews follows a plan: its individual points are not generally touched upon incidentally, but according to a predetermined order, even if it is not always easy to follow the thread of the argument. There is no customary distinction between a dogmatic and a moral section: practical applications accompany, step by step, the development of the speculative theme. Chapter 13 contains a series of brief moral recommendations, amid which the dogmatic motive appears as their foundation (13:9–15).
With this established, the question arises whether the Epistle to the Hebrews is truly a letter, or rather a dogmatic treatise or a homily. It has also been thought that the primitive form of the writing was altered by the addition of an epistolary section represented at least by 13:9, and by 13:18–25. But the whole of chapter 13 displays a marked unity of character and is perfectly epistolary in tone. Moreover, in its language, style, and sacrificial theology (13:10–15), it coincides with the rest of the writing, of which it is almost the necessary presupposition. Thus 13:2 f. merely suggests continuing the conduct that the community had maintained from its earliest days (10:32 ff.); 13:7 presupposes 2:3; and the allusions in 13:13 to 11:26, in 13:14 to 11:13–16 and 12:22, are clear. Cf. also 13:4 and 12:16; 13:10 and 8:4 f.; 13:20 and 12:14; 7:22; 9:12 (C. Spicq).
But even outside chapter 13 there are formal elements such as the apostrophes “brothers” (3:12; 10:19), “holy brothers” (3:1), and “beloved” (6:9), which are not suited to a treatise. Likewise, 6:1 f.; 9:5; and 11:32 suggest someone writing a letter and trying to be as brief as possible (13:22), rather than someone delivering a homily. Furthermore, the author knows the spiritual condition of those to whom he is writing (5:11–14; 6:9–12), the dangers to which they are exposed (2:1 ff.; 3:12 f.; 4:1, 11; 10:25 ff.), and the good works they have performed (6:11; 10:32 ff.).
Yet the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews possesses something more solemn and less epistolary is stated by the writer himself, who defines it as a “word of exhortation” (13:22) and frequently employs expressions characteristic of the oratorical style: 2:5; 5:11; 6:9; 7:9; 8:11; 9:5; 11:32. This explains the hesitant position of J. Moffatt (p. xxvii f., and in Introduction to the literature of the New Testament, 3rd ed., Edinburgh 1918, p. 428 ff.), O. Michel (p. 6), P. Prine-J. Behm (Einleitung in das Neue Test., 8th ed., Leipzig 1936, p. 215 f.), H. Windisch (p. 123 f.), P. Bonnetsin (Grâce, in DBs. III, col. 1960), and others who, with differing nuances, regard the Epistle to the Hebrews as a homily in the form of a letter, or as a writing that is neither a true letter nor a homily. But these traces of oratorical style within an epistolary form do not prove that it was originally a discourse subsequently enclosed within the framework of a letter, since the phenomenon may be explained by the writer’s habits of living speech.
II. CONTENT AND DOCTRINAL CHARACTER
Although the Epistle to the Hebrews does not clearly distinguish a doctrinal or speculative part from a moral or practical one, a predominance of doctrinal exposition must be recognized in 1:1–10:18, whereas from 10:19 to the end practical instruction prevails, becoming almost exclusive in chap. 13.
In the first part (1:1–10:18), two themes predominate: the Christological and the priestly. The former unfolds in a comparison between the Son and the angels and (less markedly) between Moses and Christ; it then concludes with a parallel between the two economies, between the ancient and the new people of God (1:4–4:13). The priestly theme, introduced in 4:14 ff., is developed in 1:1–10:18 in its twofold aspect: the priesthood considered in itself (chaps. 5–7), and sacrifice (9:1–10:18). In chap. 8, which is almost an interlude, Christ’s priesthood is conceived in relation to the true tabernacle and the new covenant.
In the second part, in which doctrinal points are not lacking (e.g., 12:18–29; 13:9–15), the great exhortation to perseverance is anchored, first (10:19–39), in the doctrine of Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice; then it is strengthened by the examples of faith provided by the righteous of the Old Testament (chap. 11), by the example of Christ, and by the profound reasons underlying divine pedagogy (12:1–13).
A more detailed analysis now follows.
First part (1:1–10:18): the superiority of the new economy, deduced especially from the dignity of the Son, God’s envoy, mediator, and priest who offered himself. After the introduction of the theme (1:1–3), there are three sections:
First section (1:4–2:18): as Son, he is infinitely superior to the angels, who are servants (1:4–14); hence the duty to receive with greater commitment the salvation announced by him (2:1–4). Although, in order to become in all things like his brothers, he appeared for a little while lower than the angels, it nevertheless remains true that everything has been subjected to him, not to the angels (2:5–18).
Second section (3:1–4:13): the emphasis on Moses as servant, whereas Christ is Son in God’s house (3:1–6), leads into an extensive practical application in which the old and the new people of God are set against one another. The latter must respond with docility while the “today” of the divine call still endures (3:7–14), lest it be excluded from God’s rest like the rebellious people of the desert (3:15–4:10). For the word of God is living and active, and nothing can resist it or remain hidden from it (4:11–13).
Third section (4:14–10:18): the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ compared with the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices. a) Christ presents himself with all the requirements for a legitimate and efficacious priesthood, the first being that he was called to it by God (4:14–5:10); b) despite the readers’ immaturity, this theme must not be abandoned in order to return to the “first principles.” The promise sworn by God to Abraham nourishes hope, which, like an anchor, penetrates beyond the veil where Christ has gone before us (5:11–6:20); c) the mysterious Melchizedek, to whom even Levi, so to speak, bowed from Abraham’s loins, prefigured Christ, who is priest not by carnal descent but by virtue of a divine oath, and eternally: a priest such as we needed, holy, undefiled, himself having no need of expiation (7:1–28); d) he is minister of the true tabernacle, of which the Mosaic one was a shadow, and he is mediator of a better covenant, which replaces the ancient one, useless and obsolete (8:1–13); e) the Mosaic tabernacle, with its divisions and the sacrifices offered there, had the task of preparing for the coming of Christ, who, as high priest of future blessings, entered once for all into the heavenly sanctuary by virtue of his own blood, by which the heavenly things themselves are purified. Because of its efficacy, this sacrifice admits no repetition, whereas the Levitical sacrifices were continually renewed because they were incapable of purifying consciences (9:1–10:18).
Second part (10:19–13:25): the new covenant demands perseverance in faith and in the practice of the other virtues. Two sections and an epilogue may be distinguished:
First section (10:19–12:20): exhortation to perseverance. a) Perseverance is necessary in order to enjoy the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice; for those who trample upon his blood there is no longer any sacrifice of expiation, but only a fearful expectation of God’s judgment and of the avenging fire. Let the readers remember the generosity of the first days of their enlightenment, so that they may not now falter, when the goal is near (10:19–39); b) faith (11:1–3) was put into practice by the patriarchs (11:4–22), by Moses, Joshua, and the few who followed them with docility (11:23–31), and by the heroes who appeared from the time of the Judges to the Maccabees (11:32–38). Yet the righteous of the Old Testament were not to attain the promises without us (11:39 f.); c) the example of Christ and the paternal character of the discipline (or chastisement) to which God subjects us, as a father does his children, should stimulate us even more to persevere (12:1–13); d) fidelity to grace in concord and in the pursuit of the common good (12:14–17). The different and more demanding character of the new covenant, and the duty of docility toward him who speaks to us from heaven, offering us a kingdom that cannot be shaken (12:18–29).
Second section (13:1–17): brotherly love, hospitality, solidarity with the persecuted and suffering, respect for marriage, avoidance of avarice, and trust in God; remembrance of the examples and teachings of the “leaders” (13:1–9). The “worshipers of the tabernacle” cannot partake of our altar, because Jesus is a victim for sin. Let us go out to Jesus beyond the camp, for here we have no permanent city, but we seek the one that is to come (13:10–15). Beneficence, generosity, and obedience to the leaders (13:16 f.).
Epilogue (13:18–25): a request for prayers, a good wish, a doxology, a recommendation that the letter, which is not long, be received favorably, a plan to travel with Timotheus, who has been released, and greetings.
This skeletal exposition reveals the doctrinal importance of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It leads us into a field that is new in many respects, in comparison with the letters of St. Paul and with the New Testament in general, although the broad outlines coincide and the great historical facts on which the doctrine rests are the same.
This letter has often been regarded as a cold speculation on the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ (wrongly conceived by various non-Catholic critics as exclusively heavenly), in accordance with the tastes of Philo of Alexandria. At times the Christological thought has been placed in the foreground, with an overestimation of the theme of the Son and the angels, which, on the contrary, is abandoned after chap. 2.
It seems rather that the central idea is that of the new covenant. This is compared in various respects with the ancient covenant, for a practical purpose: the readers’ perseverance in the life of this new religious economy. The idea of the superiority of the New Testament runs throughout the letter, reducing its various doctrinal aspects to unity, like the individual arguments in a great demonstration. Within this framework one must consider the comparison between the angels, ministers of the ancient covenant, and the Son, author of the new divine revelation; the antithesis between Moses, servant, and Christ, Son; the profound analysis of the distance between the Levitical priesthood and that of Christ, and between the sacrifices of the former—various, material, and uselessly repeated—and that of the latter, which admits no repetition by virtue of its dignity and infinite value; the contrast between Mosaic Sinai and Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, the unshakable kingdom of God; and finally, the insistence
III. AUTHOR
Protestants and rationalists generally deny Pauline authorship, whereas for Catholics the question concerns only the degree of authenticity, with an increasingly strong tendency toward the distinction—although a very ancient one—between content and form, assigning a greater or lesser role to a redactor.In Christian antiquity, alongside firm affirmations, there are also doubts about and denials of Pauline authenticity. Origen (in Eusebius, Hist. ecd., VI, 25: PG 20, 584 ff.) proposed attributing the content to the Apostle and the form to someone else. Clement of Alexandria (loc. cit., 14: PG 20, 549) held that the Greek of the e. agli E. was a translation of a Hebrew (Aramaic) original. In the West, matters went further, either through silence concerning it (the Muratorian Fragment, Irenaeus [?], Hippolytus of Rome [?]), or through its positive exclusion from the group of Pauline letters (the Roman presbyter Caius, in Eusebius, Hist. ecd., VI, 20: PG 20, 572 ff.; Tertullian, De Fudicitia, 20: CSEL, XX, 1, p. 266). Later, the Mommsenian canon (ca. 360), the canon of the Codex Claromontanus, St. Optatus of Milevis, and some others disregard the e. agli E.; the Ambrosiaster and Pelagius do not comment on it, while St. Jerome repeatedly states that the Latins do not regard the e. agli E. as St. Paul’s, although he expresses no firm personal opinion (cf. L. Mèchineau, L'e. agli E. secondo le risposte della Commissione biblica, Rome 1917, pp. 103–21).
Against these uncertainties or denials stand many favorable testimonies from the Eastern Churches and from part of the Western Churches. As early as Papyrus 46 (the Chester Beatty collection), the e. agli E. is placed between the letter to the Romans and the First to the Corinthians. The ingenious hypotheses of Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, intended to explain its peculiarities, themselves demonstrate their conviction, and that of their school, concerning its Pauline origin—a view likewise held by the Antiochene, Cappadocian, and other Fathers; hence St. Jerome could affirm (Ep. 129 ad Dardanum, 3: PL 22, 1105) that the whole of the East accepted the e. agli E. as being by St. Paul. Such unanimity was lacking in the West; but St. Jerome goes too far in generalizing when he adds (ibid.): « Quod si eam Latinorum consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas canonica... »; for this concerns not only authenticity but also canonicity. St. Hilary, Lucifer of Cagliari, St. Ambrose, Rufinus, St. Pacianus, Priscillian, and Marius Victorinus, however, declared themselves in favor of one or the other. From 409 onward, St. Augustine no longer cited the e. agli E. under Paul’s name; but in 397 he had expressly enumerated fourteen letters of St. Paul, nor did he later attach excessive importance to the denials of some. The Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), in which St. Augustine participated, had accepted, with a compromise formula, the Pauline authenticity of the e. agli E. (Enchiridion biblicum, Rome 1927, nos. 12, 14); as did more decisively Innocent I (loc. cit., no. 16) and the Carthaginian Council of 419 (loc. cit., no. 14). Apart from a few slight lapses, the doubts did not reappear until the sixteenth century. The Council of Trent, session IV, in the decree de Canonici Scripturis, did not resolve the question of authenticity.
As early as about 200, the Alexandrians had recognized the formal difficulties confronting Pauline authenticity, later taken up and amplified by modern scholars: the absence of the name and of the epistolary preamble, the scarcity of personal information and the terseness of the concluding formula, and differences of language and style.
A prudent caution or apostolic strategy might have suggested that the author keep it in the background, avoiding the name and the rest. One should also take into account the very nature of the subject and, perhaps, its redaction by others.
The differences of language and style lose nearly all their force if, in addition to Paul’s contribution, one admits that of a redactor to whom the literary dress of the e. agli E. would belong. Since its content also differs considerably from that of the other Pauline letters, new ideas required new words, or at least words with a new meaning. The 168 hapax, the 292 words that would not be found elsewhere in St. Paul, the morphological and syntactical peculiarities, and the preference given to Ἰησοῦς, Χριστός, and Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, instead of the Pauline Χριστός Ἰησοῦς, should therefore not make too great an impression. The same may be said of its command of the Greek phrase and period, by which the e. agli E. excels among the writings of the New Testament, including those of St. Luke. On the other hand, neither defects nor similarities with the other letters of St. Paul are lacking (cf. B. Heigl, pp. 51–92). Even the undeniable difference in the introductory formulas used in biblical quotations (λέγει, for example, instead of the Pauline γέγραπται) may be attributed to a redactor. The attribution to God of every word of the Bible, with the names of the human authors generally omitted, does not imply a different conception of inspiration; rather, like the imprecise indication of the passage cited, it is explained by the religious condition of the recipients (Jewish Christians). Once a manner of using the Bible that is more Alexandrian than Palestinian is admitted, it cannot be used to argue against the writing’s substantially Pauline origin (W. Leonard, pp. 265–87).
To claim that the e. agli E., in order to be Pauline, could represent doctrinally only a reworking of the preceding letters would be to confine Paul’s religious genius—or, better, divine Revelation—to excessively narrow limits. Thus, the different manner of presenting the law, the figure of Christ, Faith, and so forth proves nothing. Far from contradicting one another, these different, and even new, aspects are complementary and serve to complete the single framework of divine Revelation (E. Jacquier, Histoire des livres du Nouveau Test., I, 10th ed., Paris 1924, pp. 471–76; J. Bonsirven, pp. 140–48).
According to some, the doctrine of the e. agli E. and its manner of using the Bible would demonstrate dependence on Philo. From him would have come its taste for allegory, the personification of the word of God (4, 12 ff.), its conception of conscience, and its doctrines concerning the Son of God, the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek, and so forth. In Philo, however, allegory is almost an end in itself, or an effort to adapt the biblical text to a philosophical system; whereas the e. agli E. considers persons and events of the Old Testament—and indeed the Old Testament as a whole—in a manner closely bound to religious life, as types and figures of the new economy. Historical truth, often neglected in Philo, is followed in its minutest details as the foundation of typology. The points of contact between Philo and the e. agli E. are more formal than substantive, since their spirit and actual content are entirely different. Even outside Catholic circles, reservations are emerging, when not an outright reaction, against the alleged Philonism of the e. agli E., which was initiated by the work of J. B. Carpzov, Socrate exercitationes in s. Pauli Epistolam ad Hebreeus ex Philone Alexandrino (Helmstadt 1750. Cf. W. Leonard, pp. 188–215; J. Bonsirven, pp. 148–55).
There are no decisive internal indications either for or against Pauline authenticity. 1, 1 ff.; 5, 12 ff.; 8, 1–5; 9, 1–10.26; and 10, 1 ff. are too vague, and at most refer to the date of composition. Nor are the obscure reference to Timothy being “released” and the plan to travel with him (13, 23) conclusive for Pauline authorship. Conversely, 2, 3 cannot be invoked as irreconcilable with Paul’s apostolic mission and the independence of his preaching: his joining himself, with the “we” (here and elsewhere), to the readers is a form of modesty, or suggests the idea of the new people of God in opposition to the old (cf. 1, 2).
There are, therefore, real difficulties against Pauline authorship in an absolute sense. For this reason, the majority of Catholic critics today, while maintaining the substantial contribution of Paul, incline to associate with him a redactor.
This solution is almost implied in the reply of the Biblical Commission of 24 June 1914 (Enchiridion biblicum, nos. 429–31; cf. L. Pirot, Hebrews, in DBs, III, cols. 1436–40). The difficulty lies in identifying this mysterious personage. The very multiplicity of opinions shows how little foundation they have. Apollo (v.), Aristione (v.), Aquila (v.) and Priscilla (according to A. Harnack, the latter in particular, on account of something feminine pervading the letter), Silas, the deacon Philip, and Peter himself have been proposed by some (non-Catholics) as authors, and by others as redactors. Clement and Origen already mention Luke and Clement of Rome as translators and redactors, while Barnabas was regarded as the author by Tertullian and by some others. But the hypothesis of a translation is too much at variance with the Greek of the letter, which is almost entirely free from traces of the supposed original language. On the other hand, the affinities of form with the writings of Luke and Clement are too superficial, and are absent in the letter attributed to Barnabas. But since the latter is not his, the possibility remains of attributing to him the redaction of the e. agli E.: Barnabas was a Hellenistic Jew, familiar with the Mosaic ritual because he was a Levite; acquainted with Alexandrian literature as a Cypriot; and, finally, well regarded in Palestinian circles.
IV. CANONICITY
Cardinal Cajetan and Erasmus (L. Pirot, Hebrews, in DBs, III, col. 1424) wrongly perceived an interdependence between the Pauline authorship and the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews, such that it would be canonical only if it were by Paul. Only incidentally does the divine authority of a writing depend upon its human authorship. This is not the case here.St. Jerome, insisting on the difficulties of the Latins concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews, implies that these also concerned its canonicity (Epist. 129 ad Dardanum, 3: PL 22, 1103). Indeed, the Epistle to the Hebrews is rejected by the Roman priest Caius in his dispute with the Montanist Proclus; it is passed over in silence by many Latins of the second and third centuries (cf. above, III).
On the other hand, the letter was probably known to St. Ignatius, the Pseudo-Barnabas, St. Polycarp, and the Didache, and certainly to Clement of Rome. Traces of it are also found in Justin and in the Shepherd of Hermas. In a letter of the Gnostic Ptolemy, preserved by St. Epiphanius (Haer., 33, 3-7: PG 41, 557-68, particularly 564 C and 565 B), there are probable allusions to the Epistle to the Hebrews. That St. Irenaeus accepted it as canonical is known from Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, 26: PG 20, 309 B) and from certain allusions in his works. At Rome it is cited by St. Hippolytus, who nevertheless did not believe it to be by Paul, according to Photius. The Tractatus Origenis de Libris SS. Scripturarum (ed. P. Batiffol-A. Wilmart, Paris 1900, p. 108) cites it between two passages of St. Paul, but attributes it to Barnabas.
After the middle of the fourth century, there was unanimity in the West as well, despite a few very slight traces of the ancient doubts, which disappeared with the Tridentine decree.
V. DESTINATARI, SCOPO III DATA DI COMPOSIZIONE
The opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews was intended for ethnic Christians, advanced by E. M. Roth in 1856 and later taken up by E. Schürer, then by H. von Soden, E. Pfleiderer, R. Perdewitz, M. Dibelius, J. Moffatt, and others among non-Catholics; proposed as possible by the Catholics J. Quentel and A. M. Dubarle, is at odds with its extensive use of the Bible, its allusions to persons, things, and events of the Old Testament, its detailed comparisons between the old and the new economy, its lack of any reference to conversion from paganism, and finally with the danger, combated by the letter, of a return to Judaism. A Judeo-Christian destination is positively indicated by the reference to the “Fathers” (1:1), the notion of the people of God (2:17; 5:3; 7:27; 9:7; 11:25; 13:12),the extensive parallel with the unbelieving people in the desert (3:7–4:13), and the characteristic formula σαέρμα Ἀβραάμ (2:16; cf. 11:11, 18).
Christian antiquity had no hesitation concerning the destination of the Epistle to the Hebrews as being addressed to believers who had come from Judaism, and likewise held that its destination was Palestine, more precisely, Jerusalem. For this second point many names have been proposed in modern times, even Ravenna; but, besides Jerusalem, only two have some foundation: Alexandria and Rome. The basis for Alexandria is quite tenuous: the Alexandrian coloring of the letter. For Rome, emphasis is placed on the reference to previous persecutions (10:32 ff.) and on the greeting from “those of Italy” (13:24). Th. Zahn thinks of a minority within the community of Rome, to which Rom. 14:1 would also refer.
If the Jerusalem destination is accepted, the continuous and detailed use of the Old Testament, the allusion to details of Jewish worship, the laconic expression that Jesus “suffered outside the gate” (13:12), and the invitation to go to him “outside the camp” (13:13) are more readily explained, as are the persistent danger of relapsing into Judaism and the pressures of the unconverted, which sometimes went as far as violence. The community addressed had already had martyrs in the persons of the “leaders” (10:32 ff. to 13:7); while the believers had not yet “struggled to the point of shedding blood” (12:4), they had suffered the seizure of their possessions and many kinds of harassment (10:32 ff.).
K. Bornhäuser holds that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not addressed to the entire community of Jerusalem, but rather to the group of converted priests mentioned in Act. 6:7. His argument, however ingenious, is unconvincing. That the letter is addressed to an entire community is clear from chap. 13, which presupposes various categories of persons, including the “leaders” (vv. 7, 17, 24), distinguished from and superior to the mass of readers.
The purpose of the letter, then, is to prevent a retreat toward Judaism and to strengthen its readers in fidelity to the new covenant, whose dignity, definitive character, and advantages it extols.
As for the date of composition, few critics go beyond 90, because St. Clement of Rome (between 93 and 97) almost certainly makes use of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Nor is there a lack, even among non-Catholics, of those who remain within the limit of 70. The majority of Catholic critics do not go beyond 66–67. At the outbreak of the Jewish war, in fact, the conditions of Jewish Christians in Palestine changed radically: the community of Jerusalem would have sought refuge elsewhere (at Pella, according to Eusebius, Hist. ecl., III, 5: PG 20, 22 ff., and Epiphanius, Haer., 29, 7: PG 41, 401 ff.; 30, 2: PG 41, 408; De mensuris et ponderibus, 15: PG 43, 261). Moreover, the Epistle to the Hebrews presupposes that Jewish worship was still being practiced (9:25; 8:3 ff., etc.), so as still to constitute a danger of seduction. That the occasion was the martyrdom of James, the brother of the Lord (ca. 62), is not without foundation, but cannot be demonstrated. There would then have been a crisis in the community of Jerusalem caused by external factors and internal dissensions. The “leaders” (13:17, 24) could have constituted a kind of collegiate government during the vacancy (Eusebius seems to mention it, Hist. ecl., III, 11: PG 20, 245) between the death of James and the election of his successor Simeon. But these remain in the realm of hypotheses, as does the attempt to establish the place from which the Epistle to the Hebrews was written on the basis of 13:24, a text ambiguous even grammatically.
SIRI.: For the commentaries of the Fathers, the scholastics, and modern Catholic and Protestant authors, cf. Teodorico da Cantei S. Pietro, La Chiesa nella lettera agli Ebrei, Torino-Roma 1945, pp. VIII–XV and 13–80.
The most representative recent commentaries. Catholics: A. Bisping, 2ª ed., Münster 1864; L. Zill, Magosca 1879; A. Schaefer, Münster 1895; I. A. van Steenkiste, Commentarios in oeuvre s. Pauli Epistola, II, 6ª ed., Brugge 1899; C. Huyghe, Gand 1901; M. Sales, La S. Bibbia, Il Nuovo Testamento, II, Torino 1914, pp. 476–503; J. Graf, Fridharo in Br. 1918; I. Rohr, Der Hebräerbrief und die geheime Offenbarung des hl. Johannes, 4ª ed., Bonn 1932, pp. 1–60; A. Médebelle, in La Ste Bible
di L. Pirot, XII, Parigi 1938, pp. 269–372; J. Bonirven, Paririgi 1943.
Non-Catholics: F. Bleck, 3 parti, Berlino 1828–40; J. Chr. K. von Hofmann, Nördlingen 1873; G. Lünemann, 4ª ed., Gottings 1878; H. Alford, The Greek Testament, IV, Londra 1894, pp. 1 [87] and 1–273; B. Weiss, 4ª ed., Gottings 1897; H. von Soden, 5ª ed. Friburgo in Br. 1899; B. F. Westcott, 3ª ed., Londra 1903 (ristampa 1928); E. Rosenbach, 2ª–3ª ed., Lipsa-Erlangen 1922; J. Moffatt, Edimburgo 1924; H. Windisch, 2ª ed., Tubines 1931; T. H. Robinson, Londra 1933; O. Michel, Gottings 1936.
For introductory questions and theology, in addition to the introductory notes and the biblical and theological encyclopedias, the following may be noted among Catholics: B. Heigl, Verfasser und Adresse des Briefes an die Hebräer, Friburgo in Br. 1903; J. Quentel, Les destinataires de l'Épître aux Hébreux, in Revue biblique, 9 (1912), pp. 59–68; I. Schuster, I destinatari dell'e. agli R., in Scuola cattolica, 66 (1938), pp. 64–65; A. M. Dubois, Rédacteur et destinataires de l'Épître aux Hébreux, in Revue biblique, 48 (1939), pp. 506–20; K. Pieper, Verfasser und Empfänger des Hebräerbriefes, in Neutestamentliche Untersuchungen, Paderborn 1939, pp. 46–63; W. Leonard, The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Roma 1939; J. Ungefueuer, Der Graue Priester über dem Hance Gottes, Würzburg 1939; Teodorico da Castel S. Pietro, op. cit., Torino-Roma 1945; C. Spica, L'authenticité du chapitre XIII de l'Épître aux Hébreux (Constitutionen Neotestamentien, 11), Lund 1947, pp. 226–30; C. Spica, La théologie des deux alliances dans l'Épître aux Hébreux, in Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 33 (1949), pp. 15–30. Non-Catholics: E. K. A. Rishm, Der Lehrbegriff des Hebräerbriefes, 3 voll., Ludwigsburg 1858–59; E. Ménégos, La théologie de l'Épître aux Hébreux, Parisi 1864; G. Milligan, The theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Edimburgo 1869; A. Harnack, Probabilia über die Adresse und den Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes, in Zeitschrift für die neutest. Wiss., 1 (1900), pp. 16–41; R. Perdelwitz, Das literarische Problem des Hebräerbriefes, ibid., 11 (1910), pp. 59–78, 105–23; K. Bornhäuser, Empfänger und Verfasser des Briefes an die Hebräer (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, 35, 11), Gütersloh 1932. Teodorico da Castel San Pietro