HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE. — The last (14th) letter of the Pauline epistolary corpus, addressed, according to most scholars, to Jewish-Christians. In several respects it diverges from the others, raising problems that have not yet been resolved by criticism.
SECTIONS:
I. Literary nature
II. Content and doctrinal characteristics
III. Author
IV. Canonicity
V. Addressees, purpose, and date of composition.I. INDOLO LETTERARIA
L'e. agli E. ha una propria e inconfondibile fisionomia letteraria.È priva di certi elementi epistolari, quasi costanti nelle lettere paoline: indirizzo, saluto e benedizione augurali, presa di contatto con la comunità destinataria. Questa si delinea, a tinte piuttosto sfumate, soltanto nel corso della scritto. I primi versetti (1, 1-4), che vengono talvolta considerati come prologo, sono una decisa entrata nel vivo dell'argomento. Alla fine, pure non mandando un generico saluto (13, 24) e auguri di prosperità spirituale (13, 20 sg.) e di grazia (13, 25), scarseggiano i segni d'intimità: poche le notizie personali (13, 19-23); non saluti o da persone determinate: le «guide» sono salutate in gruppo (13, 24), come in gruppo salutano «quelli dell'Italia» (ibid.). Non si può dire, però, che lo scrivente non abbia davanti a sé una comunità determinata e che questa non gli sia sufficientemente nota nei suoi precedenti religiosi.
L'e. agli E. segue uno schema: i singoli punti non vengono, in genere, toccati occasionalmente, ma secondo un ordine prestabilito; anche se non è sempre facile seguire il filo conduttore. Non c'è la consueta distinzione tra parte dogmatica e parte morale: le applicazioni pratiche seguono passo passo lo svolgimento del tema speculativo. Nel cap. 13 si ha una serie di brevi raccomandazioni morali, in mezzo alle quali appare il motivo dogmatico quale fondamento (13, 9-15).
Ciò premesso, ci si domanda se l'e. agli E. sia veramente una lettera o non piuttosto un trattato dogmatico o un'omelia. S'è pensato anche che la forma primitiva dello scritto sia stata alterata con un'aggiunta epistolare rappresentata dal cap. 13, o, almeno, da 13, 18-25. Ma tutto il cap. 13 presenta uno spiccato carattere di unità e ha non perfettamente epistolare. Esso, poi, per la lingua, per lo stile, per la teologia sacrificale (13, 10-15), collima con il resto dello scritto, che ne è quasi il presupposto necessario. Così 13, 2 sg. non è che il suggerimento di continuare nella condotta che la comunità tenne fino dai primi giorni (13, 32 sg.); 13, 7 suppone 2, 3; com'è palese l'allusione di 13, 13 e 11, 26; di 13, 14 a 11, 13-16 e 12, 22. E cf. 13, 4 e 12, 16; 13, 10 e 8, 4 sg. i 13, 20 e 12, 14; 7, 22; 9, 12 (C. Spicq).
Ma anche fuori del cap. 13 si trovano formole come le apostrofi «fratelli» (13, 12; 10, 19), «fratelli santi» (13, 7), «carissimi» (6, 9), che non s'addicono a un trattato. Così pure 6, 1 sg.; 9, 5; 11, 32 fanno pensare più che scrive una lettera, e cerca d'essere breve il più possibile (13, 22), che «chi fa una omelia. D'altra parte, di coloro a cui s'indirizza l'autore conosce le condizioni spirituali (5, 11-14; 6, 9-12), i pericoli a cui si trovano esposti (2, 1 sg.; 3, 12 sg.; 4, 1. 11; 10, 25 sg.), e le buone azioni compiute (6, 11; 10, 32 sg.).
È tuttavia, che l'e. agli E. abbia qualcosa di più solenne e di meno epistolare lo dice lo scrittore stesso, definendola un «discorso d'esortazione» (13, 22) e ricorrendo di frequente ad espressioni proprie della stile oratorio: 2, 5; 5, 11; 6, 9; 7, 9; 8, 11; 9, 5; 11, 32. Si comprende, così, l'indecisa posizione di J. Moffatt (p. xxvii sg., e in Introduction to the literature of the New Testament, 3a ed., Edimburgo 1918, p. 428 sg.), di O. Michel (p. 6), di P. F. Ne- J. Behm (Einleitung in das Neue Test., 8a ed., Lipsia 1936, p. 215 sg.), di H. Windisch (p. 123 sg.), di P. Bonnetain (Grèce, in DBS, III, col. 1060) e d'altri, che, con sfumature diverse, vedono nell'e. agli E. un'omelia in veste di lettera o uno scritto che non è nella lettera vera e propria né omelia. Ma queste tracce di stile oratorio nella veste epistolare non provano che si trattasse, originariamente, di un discorso, chiuso poi nel quadro di una lettera, potendosi il fenomeno spiegare per le abitudini dello scrittore alla parola viva.
II. CONTENT AND DOCTRINAL CHARACTERISTICS
Although the Epistle to the Hebrews does not clearly distinguish between a doctrinal or speculative part and a moral or practical one, a preponderance of doctrinal exposition must be recognized in 1:1–10:18, while from 10:19 to the end the practical teaching prevails, becoming almost exclusive in chapter 13.In the first part (1:1–10:18), two dominant themes emerge: the Christological and the priestly. The first unfolds in a comparison between the Son and the angels (and, less distinctly, between Moses and Christ), culminating in a parallel between the two economies, between the old and the new people of God (1:4–4:13). The priestly theme, introduced in 4:14ff., is developed in 5:1–10:18, in its twofold aspect: the priesthood considered in itself (chapters 5–7) and the sacrifice (9:1–10:18). Chapter 8, which is almost an interlude, presents the priesthood of Christ in relation to the true tabernacle and the new covenant.
In the second part, where doctrinal insights are not lacking (e.g., 12:13–29; 13:9–15), the great exhortation to perseverance is first anchored (10:19–39) in the doctrine of Christ’s priesthood and sacrifice; then it is reinforced with the examples of faith from the righteous of the Old Testament (chapter 11), and with the example of Christ and the profound reasons of divine pedagogy (12:1–13).
A more detailed analysis follows.
**First Part (1:1–10:18): The Superiority of the New Economy**
The new economy’s superiority is deduced, in particular, from the dignity of the Son, sent by God as mediator and priest who offered Himself. After the introduction of the theme (1:1–3), there are three sections:
**1st Section (1:4–2:18):**
The Son, by virtue of this title, is infinitely superior to the angels, who are servants (1:4–14); hence the duty to embrace with greater commitment the salvation announced by Him (2:1–4). Though He for a little while was made lower than the angels, to become like His brethren in all things, He remains such that all things have been subjected to Him, not to the angels (2:5–18).
**2nd Section (3:1–4:13):**
The mention of Moses as a servant, while Christ is the Son in the house of God (3:1–6), leads into a broad practical application contrasting the old and the new people of God: the latter must respond with docility, while the “today” of the divine call still endures (3:7–14), lest they, like the rebellious people of the desert, be excluded from the divine rest (3:15–4:10). For the word of God is living and active, and nothing can resist or remain hidden before it (4:11–13).
**3rd Section (4:14–10:18):**
The priesthood and sacrifice of Christ are compared with the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices. Christ is shown to possess all the requisites for a legitimate and effective priesthood, first of all that of being called by God (4:14–5:10). Despite the immaturity of the readers, this theme must not be abandoned (5:11–6:20). The mysterious Melchizedek, to whom even Levi, so to speak, paid tithes from the loins of Abraham, prefigured Christ, who is a priest not by carnal descent but by virtue of a divine oath, and an eternal priest as was fitting for us, holy, undefiled, and needing no expiation (7:1–28). He is the minister of the true tabernacle, of which the Mosaic tabernacle was a shadow, and the mediator of a better covenant that replaces the old, useless and obsolete one (8:1–13). The Mosaic tabernacle, with its parts and sacrifices, served to prepare for the coming of Christ, who, as high priest of the good things to come, entered once and for all into the heavenly sanctuary by His own blood, by which the heavenly things themselves are purified. This sacrifice, because of its efficacy, admits no repetition, whereas the Levitical sacrifices were continually renewed because they could not purify consciences (9:1–10:18).
**Second Part (10:19–13:25): The New Covenant Demands Perseverance in Faith and Virtue**
Two sections and an epilogue are distinguished:
**1st Section (10:19–12:29): Exhortation to Perseverance**
a) One must persevere to enjoy the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice; for whoever tramples underfoot His blood has no more sacrifice for sin, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of the avenging fire. Let the readers recall the generosity of their first days of enlightenment, lest they grow weary now that the end is near (10:19–39).
b) Faith (11:1–3) was attested by the patriarchs (11:4–22), by Moses, Joshua, and the few who followed them with docility (11:23–31), and by the heroes from the time of the Judges to the Maccabees (11:32–38). Yet the righteous of the Old Testament did not receive the promises without us (11:39–40).
c) Even more should we be stirred to persevere by the example of Christ and the paternal character of the discipline (or chastisement) to which God subjects us as a father does his children (12:1–13).
d) Faithfulness to grace in concord and mutual esteem (12:14–17). The new covenant demands a more exacting docility toward Him who speaks to us from heaven, offering us a kingdom that cannot be shaken (12:18–29).
**2nd Section (13:1–17):**
Fraternal charity, hospitality, solidarity with the persecuted and the suffering, respect for marriage, fleeing from avarice and trusting in God; remembering the examples and teachings of the “leaders” (13:1–9). Those who serve the earthly tabernacle cannot partake of our altar, for Jesus is the victim for sin. Let us go forth to Him outside the camp, for we have no lasting city here, but we seek the one to come (13:10–15). Beneficence, generosity, and obedience to leaders (13:16–17).
**Epilogue (13:18–25):**
A request for prayers, a blessing, a doxology, a recommendation to receive the letter kindly, a brief note about a planned journey with Timothy, who has been released, and greetings.
From this selective exposition, the doctrinal importance of the Epistle to the Hebrews is evident. It opens up a new field in many respects compared to the letters of St. Paul and the New Testament in general, although the broad outlines and the same historical facts underlie the doctrine.
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 purely celestial), in line with the tastes of Philo of Alexandria. At times, the Christological thought has been placed in the foreground, overemphasizing the theme of the Son and the angels, which, on the contrary, is abandoned after chapter 2.
It seems rather that the central idea is that of the new covenant. This is compared in various aspects with the old, for a practical purpose: the perseverance of the readers in the life of this new religious economy. The idea of the superiority of the New Testament runs throughout the letter, unifying its various doctrinal aspects, just as the individual arguments of a great demonstration. Within this framework must be considered the comparison between the angels, ministers of the old, and the Son, author of the new divine dispensation; the contrast between Moses, the servant, and Christ, the Son; the profound analysis of the distance between the Levitical priesthood and that of Christ, between the sacrifices of the former—varied, material, and uselessly repeated—and that of the latter, which admits no repetition by virtue of its dignity and infinite value; the contrast between Mount Sinai and Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, the unshakable kingdom of God; and finally, the insistence on the duty of a holier life for those favored with such wonderful gifts.
III. Authorship
Protestants and rationalists generally deny the Pauline authorship, while for Catholics the question concerns only the degree of authenticity, tending increasingly toward the ancient distinction between content and form, assigning a more or less significant role to an editor.In early Christianity, alongside firm affirmations of Pauline authorship, there were also doubts and denials. Origen (in Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, VI, ch. 5: PG 20, 584 sq.) proposed attributing the content to the Apostle and the form to another. Clement of Alexandria (loc. cit., ch. 14: PG 20, 549) believed the Greek of the Epistle to the Hebrews was a translation of an original Hebrew (Aramaic) text. In the West, the situation went even further, either by silence regarding it (*Fortunatianus Martyr*, Irenaeus [?], Hippolytus of Rome [?]), or by explicitly excluding it from the Pauline corpus (the Roman priest Gaius, in Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, VI, 20: PG 20, 572 sq.; Tertullian, *De Pudicitia*, 20: CSEL, XX, 1, p. 266). Later, the Epistle to the Hebrews was ignored by the Mommsen canon (ca. 366), the canon of the Claromontanus codex, St. Optatus of Milevis, and others; it was not commented upon by Ambrosiaster or Pelagius, while St. Jerome repeatedly states that the Latins did not consider the Epistle to the Hebrews as by St. Paul, though he does not express a definitive personal opinion (cf. L. Méchinau, *L'Epître aux Hébreux selon les réponses de la Commission biblique*, Rome 1917, pp. 103-21).
Against these uncertainties or denials stand many favorable testimonies from the Eastern churches and part of the Western churches. Already Papyrus 46 (Chester Beatty collection) places the Epistle to the Hebrews between the Epistle to the Romans and 1 Corinthians. The ingenious hypotheses of Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen to explain its peculiarities demonstrate their conviction, shared by their school, of its Pauline origin, a view also held by the Antiochene, Cappadocian, and Syriac Fathers. Thus, St. Jerome can affirm (Ep. 129 to Dardanus, 3: PL 22, 1103) that all the East accepts the Epistle to the Hebrews as by St. Paul. A similar unanimity was lacking in the West; however, St. Jerome generalizes too much when he adds (ibid.): «Quod si eam Latinorum consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas canonicas...»; this involves not only authenticity but also canonicity. Instead, in favor of both authenticity and canonicity are St. Hilary, Lucifer of Cagliari, St. Ambrose, Rufinus, St. Pacian, Priscillian, and Marius Victorinus. St. Augustine, from 409 onward, no longer cites the Epistle to the Hebrews under St. Paul’s name; but in 397 he had deliberately enumerated 14 letters of St. Paul, and subsequently did not 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 formula of compromise, the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (*Enchiridion biblicum*, Rome 1927, nn. 12, 14); as did more decisively Innocent I (loc. cit., n. 16) and the Council of Carthage of 419 (loc. cit., n. 14). Despite some lingering doubts, the controversy did not resurface until the 16th century. The Council of Trent, in its fourth session, in the decree on the Canonical Scriptures, did not resolve the question of authorship.
Already the Alexandrians, around 200, had noted the stylistic difficulties against Pauline authorship, later taken up and amplified by modern critics: the absence of the author’s name and of the epistolary preface, the scarcity of personal details and the brevity of the concluding formula, as well as differences in language and style.
The author’s decision to remain in the shadows, avoiding his name and the rest, might suggest a prudent or tactical approach in apostolate. Added to this is the nature of the subject itself and, perhaps, the editorial work of another.
The differences in language and style lose nearly all force if one admits, alongside Paul’s contribution, that of an editor responsible for the literary form of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Since its content is notably different from that of the other Pauline letters, new ideas required new vocabulary, or at least words with new meanings. Thus, the 168 *hapax legomena*, the 202 words not found elsewhere in St. Paul, the morphological and syntactical peculiarities, and the preference for *ἱλαστήριον* (*hilastērion*), *Χριστός* (*Christos*), over the Pauline *Κύριος* (*Kyrios*), should not be overly emphasized. The same applies to the mastery of Greek phraseology and syntax, by which the Epistle to the Hebrews surpasses the writings of the New Testament, including those of St. Luke. Nor are there lacking defects or similarities to the other letters of St. Paul (cf. B. Heigl, pp. 31-92). Even the undeniable diversity in the introductory formulas of biblical quotations (e.g., *ἀγαθός* (*agathos*) instead of the Pauline *Κύριος* (*Kyrios*)) can be attributed to an editor. The attribution to God of every word of Scripture, with the human authors generally unnamed, does not imply a different conception of inspiration; rather, like the imprecise citation of passages, it can be explained by the religious conditions of the translators (Jewish-Christians). If one admits a more Alexandrian than Palestinian manner of using Scripture, this cannot be used as an argument against the essential Pauline origin of the writing (W. Leonard, pp. 265-87).
To claim that, for it to be Pauline, the Epistle to the Hebrews could represent, in terms of doctrine, nothing more than a reworking of previous letters would be to impose overly narrow limits on the religious genius of Paul, or rather on divine Revelation itself. Thus, the different manner of presenting the Law, the figure of Christ, faith, etc., proves nothing. Far from contradicting, these new aspects are complementary: they serve to complete the single framework of divine Revelation (E. Jacquier, *Histoire des livres du Nouveau Testament*, I, 104-48, Paris 1924, pp. 471-76; J. Bonsirven, pp. 140-48).
The doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews and its manner of using Scripture have led some to argue for its dependence on Philo. From him would derive its taste for allegory, the personification of the Word of God (4:12 sq.), the conception of conscience, the doctrine of the Son of God, of the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek, etc. But in Philo, allegory is almost an end in itself or an effort to adapt the biblical text to a philosophical system, whereas in the Epistle to the Hebrews persons and events of the Old Testament, indeed the Old Testament as a whole, are treated in a manner closely tied to religious life, as types and figures of the new economy. Historical truth, often overlooked by Philo, is followed in its minutest details as the foundation of typology. The similarities between Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews are more formal than substantive, given the vastly different spirit and content. Even outside Catholic circles, reservations have emerged, if not outright reaction, against the alleged Philonism of the Epistle to the Hebrews, a thesis initiated by J. B. Carpzov, *Sacrae exercitationes in s. Pauli Epistolam ad Hebraeos 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 authorship. The vague references in 1:1-2; 5:12 sq.; 8:1-5; 9:1-10, 26; 10:1 sq. relate rather to the date of composition. Nor is the obscure mention of Timothy, with whom the travel plan was abandoned (13:23), conclusive for Pauline authorship. Conversely, 2:3 cannot be invoked as irreconcilable with the apostolic mission and the independence of Paul’s preaching: the use of the “we” (here and elsewhere) with the readers is a form of modesty, or suggests the idea of the new People of God in contrast to the old (cf. 1:2).
There are, therefore, real difficulties against the absolute Pauline authorship. For this reason, today the majority of Catholic critics, while maintaining the essential part of Paul, tend to associate an editor with him.
This solution is almost implied in the reply of the Biblical Commission of 24 June 1914 (Enchiridion biblicum, nn. 429-31; cf. L. Pirot, Hébreux, in DBs, III, cols. 1436-40). The difficulty lies in identifying this mysterious figure. The very multiplicity of opinions shows how little they are founded. APOLLO (v.), ARISTION (v.), AQUILA (v.) and PRISCILLA (according to A. Harnack, particularly she, on account of something feminine in the letter), SILAS, the deacon Philip, Peter himself, have been proposed by some (non-Catholics) as authors, by others as editors. Already Clement and Origen name Luke and Clement of Rome as translators or editors, while Barnabas was held to be the author by Tertullian and some others. But the hypothesis of a translation is too much at odds with the Greek of the letter, which is almost free from traces of the supposed original language. On the other hand, the formal affinities with the writings of Luke and Clement are too superficial, and are lacking in the letter attributed to Barnabas. But since this is not his, the possibility remains of attributing to him its editing. Barnabas was a Hellenist Jew, familiar with the Masonic irruption, because he was a Levite; acquainted with Alexandrian literature, as a Cypriot; well regarded, finally, in the Palestinian environment.
IV. CANONICITY
Wrongly did Cardinal Gaetano and Erasmo (L. Pirot, Hébreux, in DBs, III, cols. 1424) see an interdependence between Pauline authenticity and the canonicity of Hebrews. In such a way that this would not be canonical unless it were by Paul. The divine authority of a writing does not depend, even incidentally, on its human authenticity. This is not the case.St. Jerome, insisting on the difficulties of the Latins regarding Hebrews, lets it be understood that these also touched its canonicity (Epist. 129 ad Dardanum, 3: PL 22, 1103). Indeed, Hebrews is rejected by the Roman priest Caius in the dispute with the Montanist Proclus; it was passed over in silence by many Latins of the 3rd century (cf. above, III).
On the other hand, the letter is known, probably, to St. Ignatius, to Pseudo-Barnabas, to St. Polycarp, to 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 Hebrews. That St. Irenaeus accepted it as canonical is known from Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, 26: PG 20, 509 B) and from some allusions in his works. At Rome it is quoted by St. Hippolytus, who however does not believe it to be by Paul, according to the statement of Photius. It is quoted also by St. Ambrose, who likewise does not consider it Pauline, and by St. Jerome, who, in his Commentary on Philemon (Prologus: PL 26, 599), expresses doubts about its Pauline authorship, though he does not exclude it from the canon.
V. DESTINATARI, SCOPO II DATA DI COMPOSIZIONE
The opinion that the Ep. E. was intended for Gentile-Christians, advanced by E. M. Roth in 1836 and later taken up by E. Schürer, then by H. von Soden, E. Pfleiderer, R. Perdelwitz, M. Dibelius, J. Moffatt and others among non-Catholics; suggested as possible by the Catholics J. Quentel and A. M. Dubarle, is in contrast with the extensive use of the Bible, such as the allusions to the personages, as well as to all of the Old Testament, with the minute comparisons between the old and the new dispensation, with the lack of references to an understanding of paganism, and finally with the danger, combated by the letter, of a return to Judaism. A positive indication of a Judeo-Christian destination is 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 widespread parallel with the unbelieving people of the desert (3:7–4:13), the characteristic formula σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ (2:16; cf. 11:11, 18).
Christian antiquity was not agreed on the destination of the Ep. E. to believers coming from Judaism, and it also held that the place of destination was Palestine, or more precisely, Jerusalem. As regards this second point, many names have been proposed in modern times, even that of Ravenna; but only two, besides Jerusalem, have a certain foundation: Alexandria and Rome. For Alexandria the basis is very weak: the Alexandrian coloring of the letter. For Rome the emphasis is placed on the previous persecutions (10:32 ff.), on the greeting from those of Italy (13:24). Th. Zahn thinks of a minority of the Roman community, to which Rom. 14:1 would also refer.
Accepting the Jerusalem destination, the continuous and minute use of the Old Testament is better explained, the allusion to particulars of Jewish worship, the laconic expression that Jesus "suffered outside the gate" (13:12) and the invitation to go "outside the camp" to meet Him (13:13), the persistent danger of relapse into Judaism, the pressures from the unconverted that sometimes reach the point of violence. The recipient community has already had martyrs in the person of the "guides" (10:32 ff.; 13:7); while the faithful have not yet "resisted to the shedding of blood" (12:4), but have suffered spoliation of goods and manifold vexations (10:32 ff.).
K. Bornhäuser holds that the Ep. E. is not addressed to the whole community of Jerusalem, but to the group of converted priests, of whom mention is made in Acts 6:7. His argument, however ingenious, is not convincing. That the letter is addressed to an entire community is evident from chap. 13, which presupposes various categories of persons, among whom also the "guides" (vv. 7, 17, 24), distinct from the mass of readers and superior to II.
The purpose of the letter is therefore to prevent a relapse into Judaism and to strengthen fidelity to the new covenant, of which the dignity, definitive character, and advantages are extolled.
As to the date of composition, few critics go beyond the year 90, for the reason that St. Clement of Rome (between 93 and 97) almost certainly uses the letter. Nor is there a lack, even among Catholics, who place it within the limit of 70. The majority of Catholic critics do not go beyond 66-67. Indeed, with the outbreak of the Jewish War, the conditions of the Jewish-Christians changed radically in Palestine: the community of Jerusalem would have sought refuge elsewhere (at Pella, according to Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 5: PG 20, 22; 9, 4; 11, 4; 12, 4; 13, 4; 14, 4; 15, 4; 16, 4; 17, 4; 18, 4; 19, 4; 20, 4; 21, 4; 22, 4; 23, 4; 24, 4; 25, 4; 26, 4; 27, 4; 28, 4; 29, 4; 30, 4; 31, 4; 32, 4; 33, 4; 34, 4; 35, 4; 36, 4; 37, 4; 38, 4; 39, 4; 40, 4; 41, 4; 42, 4; 434; 206, 4; 207, 4; 208, 4; 209, 4; 210, 4; 211, 4; 212, 4; 213, 4; 214, 4; 215, 4; 216, 4; 217, 4; 218, 4; 219, 4; 220, 4; 221, 4; 222, 4; 223, 4; 224, 4; 225, 4; 226, 4; 227, 4; 228, 4; 229, 4; 230, 4; 231, 4; 232, 4; 233, 4; 234, 4; 235, 4; 236, 4; 237, 4; 238, 4; 239, 4; 240, 4; 241, 4; 242, 4; 243, 4; 244, 4; 245, 4; 246, 4; 247, 4; 248, 4; 249, 4; 250, 4; 251, 4; 252, 4; 253, 4; 254, 4; 255, 4; 256, 4; 257, 4; 258, 4; 259, 4; 260, 4; 261, 4; 262, 4; 263, 4; 264, 4; 265, 4; 266, 4; 267, 4; 268, 4; 269, 4; 270, 4; 271, 4; 272, 4; 273, 4; 274, 4; 275, 4; 276, 4; 277, 4; 278, 4; 279, 4; 280, 4; 281, 4; 282, 4; 283, 4; 284, 4; 285, 4; 286, 4; 287, 4; 288, 4; 289, 4; 290, 4; 291, 4; 292, 4; 293, 4; 294, 4; 295, 4; 296, 4; 297, 4; 298, 4; 299, 4; 300, 4; 301, 4; 302, 4; 303, 4; 304, 4; 305, 4; 306, 4; 307, 4; 308, 4; 309, 4; 310, 4; 311, 4; 312, 4; 313, 4; 314, 4; 315, 4; 316, 4; 317, 4; 318, 4; 319, 4; 320, 4; 321, 4; 322, 4; 323, 4; 324, 4; 325, 4; 326, 4; 327, 4; 328, 4; 329, 4; 330, 4; 331, 4; 332, 4; 333, 4; 334, 4; 335, 4; 336, 4; 337, 4; 338, 4; 339, 4; 340, 4; 341, 4; 342, 4; 343, 4; 344, 4; 345, 4; 346, 4; 347, 4; 348, 4; 349, 4; 350, 4; 351, 4; 352, 4; 353, 4; 354, 4; 355, 4; 356, 4; 357, 4; 358, 4; 359, 4; 360, 4; 361, 4; 362, 4; 363, 4; 364, 4; 365, 4; 366, 4; 367, 4; 368, 4; 369, 4; 370, 4; 371, 4; 372, 4; 373, 4; 374, 4; 375, 4; 376, 4; 377, 4; 378, 4; 379, 4; 380, 4; 381, 4; 382, 4; 383, 4; 384, 4; 385, 4; 386, 4; 387, 4; 388, 4; 389, 4; 390, 4; 391, 4; 392, 4; 393, 4; 394, 4; 395, 4; 396, 4; 397, 4; 398, 4; 399, 4; 400, 4; 401, 4; 402, 4; 403, 4; 404, 4; 405, 4; 406, 4; 407, 4; 408, 4; 409, 4; 410, 4; 411, 4; 412, 4; 413, 4; 414, 4; 415, 4; 416, 4; 417, 4; 418, 4; 419, 4; 420, 4; 421, 4; 422, 4; 423, 4; 424, 4; 425, 4; 426, 4; 427, 4; 428, 4; 429, 4; 430, 4; 431, 4; 432, 4; 433, 4; 434, 4; 435, 4; 436, 4; 437, 4; 438, 4; 439, 4; 440, 4; 441, 4; 442, 4; 443, 4; 444, 4; 445, 4; 446, 4; 447, 4; 448, 4; 449, 4; 450, 4; 451, 4; 452, 4; 453, 4; 454,4; 455, 4; 456, 4; 457, 4; 458, 4; 459, 4; 460, 4; 461, 4; 462, 4; 463, 4; 464, 4; 465, 4; 466, 4; 467, 4; 468, 4; 469, 4; 470, 4; 471, 4; 472, 4; 473, 4; 474, 4; 475, 4; 476, 4; 477, 4; 478, 4; 479, 4; 480, 4; 481, 4; 482, 4; 483, 4; 484, 4; 485, 4; 486, 4; 487, 4; 488, 4; 489, 4; 490, 4; 491, 4; 492, 4; 493, 4; 494, 4; 495, 4; 496, 4; 497, 4; 498, 4; 499, 4; 500, 4; 501, 4; 502, 4; 503, 4; 504, 4; 505, 4; 506, 4; 507, 4; 508, 4; 509, 4; 510, 4; 511, 4; 512, 4; 513, 4; 514, 4; 515, 4; 516, 4; 517, 4; 518, 4; 519, 4; 520, 4; 521, 4; 522, 4; 523, 4; 524, 4; 525, 4; 526, 4; 527, 4; 528, 4; 529, 4; 530, 4; 531, 4; 532, 4; 533, 4; 534, 4; 535, 4; 536, 4; 537, 4; 538, 4; 539, 4; 540, 4; 541, 4; 542, 4; 543, 4; 544, 4; 545, 4; 546, 4; 547, 4; 548, 4; 549, 4; 550, 4; 551, 4; 552, 4; 553, 4; 554, 4; 555, 4; 556, 4; 557, 4; 558, 4; 559, 4; 560, 4; 561, 4; 562, 4; 563, 4; 564, 4; 565, 4; 566, 4; 567, 4; 568, 4; 569, 4; 570, 4; 571, 4; 572, 4; 573, 4; 574, 4; 575, 4; 576, 4; 577, 4; 578, 4; 579, 4; 580, 4; 581, 4; 582, 4; 583, 4; 584, 4; 585, 4; 586, 4; 587, 4; 588, 4; 589, 4; 590, 4; 591, 4; 592, 4; 593, 4; 594, 4; 595, 4; 596, 4; 597, 4; 598, 4; 599, 4; 600, 4; 601, 4; 602, 4; 603, 4; 604, 4; 605, 4; 606, 4; 607, 4; 608, 4; 609, 4; 610, 4; 611, 4; 612, 4; 613, 4; 614, 4; 615, 4; 616, 4; 617, 4; 618, 4; 619, 4; 620, 4; 621, 4; 622, 4; 623, 4; 624, 4; 625, 4; 626, 4; 627, 4; 628, 4; 629, 4; 630, 4; 631, 4; 632, 4; 633, 4; 634, 4; 635, 4; 636, 4; 637, 4; 638, 4; 639, 4; 640, 4; 641, 4; 642, 4; 643, 4; 644, 4; 645, 4; 646, 4; 647, 4; 648, 4; 649, 4; 650, 4; 651, 4; 652, 4; 653, 4; 654, 4; 655, 4; 656, 4; 657, 4; 658, 4; 659, 4; 660, 4; 661, 4; 662, 4; 663, 4; 664, 4; 665, 4; 666, 4; 667, 4; 668, 4; 669, 4; 670, 4; 671, 4; 672, 4; 673, 4; 674, 4; 675, 4; 676, 4; 677, 4; 678, 4; 679, 4; 680, 4; 681, 4; 682, 4; 683, 4; 684, 4; 685, 4; 686, 4; 687, 4; 688, 4; 689, 4; 690, 4; 691, 4; 692, 4; 693, 4; 694, 4; 695, 4; 696, 4; 697, 4; 698, 4; 699, 4; 700, 4; 701, 4; 702, 4; 703, 4; 704, 4; 705, 4; 706, 4; 707, 4; 708, 4; 709, 4; 710, 4; 711, 4; 712, 4; 713, 4; 714, 4; 715, 4; 716, 4; 717, 4; 718, 4; 719, 4; 720, 4; 721, 4; 722, 4; 723, 4; 724, 4; 725, 4; 726, 4; 727, 4; 728, 4; 729, 4; 730, 4; 731, 4; 732, 4; 733, 4; 734, 4; 735, 4; 736, 4; 737, 4; 738, 4; 739, 4; 740, 4; 741, 4; 742, 4; 743, 4; 744, 4; 745, 4; 746, 4; 747, 4; 748, 4; 749, 4; 750, 4; 751, 4; 752, 4; 753, 4; 754, 4; 755, 4; 756, 4; 757, 4; 758, 4; 759, 4; 760, 4; 761, 4; 762, 4; 763, 4; 764, 4; 765, 4; 766, 4; 767, 4; 768, 4; 769, 4; 770, 4; 771, 4; 772, 4; 773, 4; 774, 4; 775, 4; 776, 4; 777, 4; 778, 4; 779, 4; 780, 4; 781, 4; 782, 4; 783, 4; 784, 4; 785, 4; 786, 4; 787, 4; 788, 4; 789, 4; 790, 4; 791, 4; 792, 4; 793, 4; 794, 4; 795, 4; 796, 4; 797, 4; 798, 4; 799, 4; 800, 4; 801, 4; 802, 4; 803, 4; 804, 4; 805, 4; 806, 4; 807, 4; 808, 4; 809, 4; 810, 4; 811, 4; 812, 4; 813, 4; 814, 4; 815, 4; 816, 4; 817, 4; 818, 4; 819, 4; 820, 4; 821, 4; 822, 4; 823, 4; 824, 4; 825, 4; 826, 4; 827, 4; 828, 4; 829, 4; 830, 4; 831, 4; 832, 4; 833, 4; 834, 4; 835, 4; 836, 4; 837, 4; 838, 4; 839, 4; 840, 4; 841, 4; 842, 4; 843, 4; 844, 4; 845, 4; 846, 4; 847, 4; 848, 4; 849, 4; 850, 4; 851, 4; 852, 4; 853, 4; 854, 4; 855, 4; 856, 4; 857, 4; 858, 4; 859, 4; 860, 4; 861, 4; 862, 4; 863, 4; 864, 4; 865, 4; 866, 4; 867, 4; 868,
Per le questioni introduttorie e per la teologia, oltre le note introduzioni, le enciclopedie bibliche e teologiche, da semaforare i cattolici: H. 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, 3 (1912), pp. 56-68; I. Schlueter, I destinataire dell'église, in Scuola cattolica, 66 (1938), pp. 641-65; A. M. Dubaré, Rédacteur et destinataire de l'Épître aux Hébreux, in Revue biblique, 48 (1939), pp. 506-29; K. Pieper, Verfasser und Empfänger des Hebräerbriefes, in Neues Testamentliches Untersuchungen, Paderborn 1939, pp. 46-65; W. Leonard, The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Roma 1939; J. Ungcheuer, Der Grosse Priester über dem Hause Gottes, Würzburg 1939; T. Tedorico da Cassel S. Pietro, op. cit., Torino-Roma 1945; C. Spicq, L'authenticité du chapitre XIII de l'Épître aux Hébreux (Concertatione Neotestamentica, 11), Lund 1947, pp. 226-36; C. Spicq, La théologie des deux alliées dans l'Épître aux Hébreux, in Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 33 (1949), pp. 15-30. Non cattolici: E. K. A. Rüchm, Der Lehrberuf des Hebräerbriefes, a voll., Ludwigsburg 1858-59; E. Ménégot, La théologie de l'Épître aux Hébreux, Paris 1894; G. Milligan, The theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Edimburgo 1890; A. Harnack, Probabilità über die Adresse und den Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes, in Zeitschrift für die neuzeit. 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, 33, 111), Göttingen 1932.