Hebrews, Epistle to the

HEBREWS, Epistle to the. - The last (14th) letter of the Pauline epistolary corpus, addressed, according to most, to Jewish Christians. In various respects it stands apart from the others, raising problems not yet resolved by criticism.

I. LITERARY CHARACTER

The Epistle to the Hebrews has its own unmistakable literary physiognomy.

It lacks certain epistolary elements that are almost constant in the Pauline letters: the address, the greeting and blessing of good wishes, the initial contact with the recipient community. This community is outlined, rather by hints, only in the course of the writing. The first verses (1:1-4), which are sometimes regarded as a prologue, are a decisive entry into the heart of the subject. At the end, although a generic greeting is not lacking (13:24) along with wishes for spiritual prosperity (13:20 f.) and for grace (13:25), signs of intimacy are scarce: few personal notices (13:19, 23); no greetings to specific individuals: the "leaders" are greeted as a group (13:24), just as "those from Italy" greet as a group (ibid.). It cannot be said, however, that the writer does not have before him a definite community and that this community is not sufficiently known to him in its religious antecedents.

The Epistle to the Hebrews follows a plan: the individual points are not, in general, touched upon occasionally, but according to a pre-established order; even if it is not always easy to follow the guiding thread. There is no usual distinction between the dogmatic part and the moral part: the practical applications follow step by step the development of the speculative theme. In ch. 13 there is a series of brief moral recommendations, in the midst of which the dogmatic motif appears as their foundation (13:9-15).

This said, 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 an epistolary addition represented by ch. 13:9, or at least by 13:18-25. But the whole of ch. 13 displays a marked character of unity and has a perfectly epistolary tone. Moreover, in its language, style, and sacrificial theology (13:10-15), it agrees with the rest of the writing, of which it is almost the necessary presupposition. Thus 13:2 f. is nothing but the suggestion to continue in the conduct that the community maintained from the first days (10:32 ff.); 13:7 presupposes 2:3; just as the allusion of 13:13 to 11:26, and of 13:14 to 11:13-16 and 12:22, is evident. And cf. 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 ch. 13 there are formal apostrophes such as "brethren" (3:12; 10:19), "holy brethren" (3:1), "beloved" (6:9), which are not suited to a treatise. Likewise 6:1 f.; 9:5; 11:32 suggest rather someone writing a letter, and trying to be as brief as possible (13:22), than someone delivering a homily. On the other hand, of those to whom he addresses himself the author knows the spiritual conditions (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 deeds they have performed (6:11; 10:32 ff.).

It is true, however, that the Epistle to the Hebrews has something more solemn and less epistolary, as the writer himself says, defining it as a "word of exhortation" (13:22) and frequently resorting to expressions proper to oratorical style: 2:5; 5:11; 6:9; 7:9; 8:11; 9:5; 11:32. Thus one understands the undecided position of J. Moffatt (p. xxvii f., and in Introduction to the literature of the New Testament, 3rd ed., Edinburgh 1918, p. 428 ff.), of O. Michel (p. 6), of P. Feine-J. Behm (Einleitung in das Neue Test., 8th ed., Leipzig 1936, p. 215 f.), of H. Windisch (p. 123 f.), of P. Bonnard (Grâce, in DBs. III, col. 1960) and of others, who, with different nuances, see in the Epistle to the Hebrews a homily in the guise of a letter or a writing that is neither a true letter nor a homily. But these traces of oratorical style in the epistolary guise do not prove that it was originally a discourse, later enclosed within the framework of a letter, since the phenomenon can be explained by the writer's habits of living speech.

II. CONTENUTO E CARATTERISTICA DOTTRINALE

Although the Epistle to the Hebrews does not clearly distinguish a doctrinal or speculative part from 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 practical teaching prevails, becoming almost exclusive in ch. 13.

In the first part (1:1-10:18) there are two dominant themes: the christological and the sacerdotal. The first unfolds in a comparison between the Son and the angels and (less prominently) between Moses and Christ; to end finally in a parallel between the two economies, between the old and the new people of God (1:4-4:13). The sacerdotal theme, introduced in 4:14 ff., is developed in 1:1-10:18, in its twofold aspect, of priesthood considered in itself (chs. 5-7) and of sacrifice (9:1-10:18). In ch. 8, which is almost an intermezzo, the priesthood of Christ is conceived in relation to the true tabernacle and the new covenant.

In the second part, in which doctrinal touches are not lacking (e.g., 12:18-29; 13:9-15), the great exhortation to perseverance is anchored, first (10:19-39), to the doctrine of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ; then, corroborated with the examples of faith of the righteous of the Old Testament (ch. 11), with the example of Christ and the deep reasons of divine pedagogy (12:1-13).

There now follows a more detailed analysis.

Part 1 (1:1-10:18): superiority of the new economy, deduced, particularly, from the dignity of the Son, sent by God, mediator and priest who immolated himself. After the introduction of the theme (1:1-3), there are 3 sections:

1st section (1:4-2:18): the Son, by this title, is infinitely superior to the angels, who are servants (1:4-14); hence the duty to welcome with greater commitment the salvation announced by him (2:1-4); if he for a little while appeared below the angels, to make himself in all things like his brethren, it remains, however, that to him, not to the angels, all things have been subjected (2:5-18).

2nd section (3:1-4:13): the accent on Moses, a servant, while Christ is Son in the house of God (3:1-6), preludes a broad practical application, in which the old and the new people of God are set one against the other: the latter must respond with docility, while the "today" of the divine call still endures (3:7-14), so as not to be, like the rebellious people of the desert, excluded from the divine rest (3:15-4:10); living, indeed, and active is the word of God, and nothing can resist it or remain hidden from it (4:11-13).

3rd 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 requisites for a legitimate and efficacious priesthood, first of which is having been called to it by God (4:14-5:10); b) notwithstanding the immaturity of the readers, this theme must not be abandoned to return to the "first elements." The promise sworn by God to Abraham nourishes hope, which, like an anchor, penetrates beyond the veil where Christ has preceded us (5:11-6:20); c) the mysterious Melchizedek, to whom even Levi bowed, so to speak, from the loins of Abraham, prefigured Christ, who is priest, not by carnal descent, but by virtue of a divine oath, and forever: a priest such as was fitting for us, holy, undefiled, not needing, he too, expiation (7:1-28); d) He is minister of the true tabernacle, of which the Mosaic one was a shadow, and is mediator of a better covenant, which replaces the ancient one, useless and outgrown (8:1-13); e) the Mosaic tabernacle, with its parts and the sacrifices offered there, had the task of preparing for the advent of Christ, who, as pontiff of the good things to come, has entered forever into the heavenly sanctuary, by virtue of his own blood, with which the heavenly things themselves are purified. This sacrifice, because of its efficacy, admits no repetitions, while the levitical ones were incessantly renewed, because incapable of purifying consciences (9:1-10:18).

Part 2 (10:19-13:25): the new covenant demands perseverance in faith and in the practice of the other virtues. Two sections and one epilogue are distinguished:

1st section (10:19-12:20): exhortation to perseverance. a) One must persevere to enjoy the advantages of Christ's sacrifice; for one who tramples his blood there is no longer a sacrifice of expiation, but only fearful expectation of God's judgment and of avenging fire. Let the readers remember the generosity of the first days of their illumination, so as not to fail now that 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), 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 obtain the promises without us (11:39 f.); c) even more must the example of Christ and the paternal character of the discipline (or chastisement) to which God subjects us as a father does his own children stimulate us to persevere (12:1-13); d) faithfulness to grace in concord and in the pursuit of the common good (12:14-17). Different and more demanding character of the new covenant and duty of docility toward him who speaks to us from heaven, offering us a kingdom that does not fail (12:18-29).

2nd section (13:1-17): fraternal charity, hospitality, solidarity with the persecuted and the suffering, respect for marriage, flight from avarice and trust in God; remembering the examples and teachings of the "guides" (13:1-9). "The worshippers of the tabernacle" cannot eat from our altar, because Jesus is a victim for sin. Let us go to Jesus outside the camp; for we have no permanent city here below, but we seek the one to come (13:10-15). Beneficence, generosity and obedience to the guides (13:16 f.).

Epilogue (13:18-25): request for prayers, good wishes, doxology, recommendation to receive kindly the letter, which is not long, plan of travel with Timothy, who has been released, greetings.

From this skeletal exposition one perceives the doctrinal importance of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It carries us into a field new, in many respects, relative to the letters of St. Paul and to the New Testament in general; although the great lines coincide and the great historical facts on which the doctrine rests are the same.

This letter has often been considered as a cold speculation on the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ (conceived wrongly, by various non-Catholic critics, as solely heavenly), according to the tastes of Philo of Alexandria. Sometimes the christological thought has been placed in the foreground, overvaluing the theme of the Son and the angels, which, on the contrary, after ch. 2 is abandoned.

It seems rather that the central idea is that of the new covenant. This is compared under various aspects with the ancient one, 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 through the whole letter, reducing its various doctrinal aspects to unity, like the individual arguments of a great demonstration. In this framework are to be considered the comparison between the angels, ministers of the ancient, and the Son, author of the new divine revelation; the antithesis between Moses, a servant, and Christ, Son; the profound analysis of the distance between the levitical priesthood and that of Christ, between the sacrifices of the one — various, material and uselessly repeated — and that of the other, which admits no repetitions by force of its dignity and its infinite value; the contrast between the Mosaic Sinai and Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, the unshakable kingdom of God; finally, the insistence on the duty of a greater holiness of life in those favored with such wonderful gifts.

III. AUTHOR

Protestants and rationalists generally deny the Pauline authorship, whereas for Catholics the question concerns only the degree of authenticity, with a tendency to orient themselves ever more toward the distinction — one that is, moreover, quite ancient — between content and form, assigning a greater or lesser part to a redactor.

In Christian antiquity, alongside firm affirmations, there are also doubts and denials of the Pauline authenticity. Origen (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI, 25: PG 20, 584 ff.) proposed to attribute the content to the Apostle and the form to others. Clement of Alexandria (loc. cit., 14: PG 20, 549) held that the Greek of the Epistle to the Hebrews was a translation of a Hebrew (Aramaic) original. In the West matters went further, either by passing over it in silence (the Muratorian Fragment, Irenaeus [?], Hippolytus of Rome [?]), or by positively excluding it from the group of the Pauline epistles (the Roman presbyter Gaius, in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI, 20: PG 20, 572 ff.; Tertullian, De pudicitia, 20: CSEL, XX, 1, p. 266). Later the Epistle to the Hebrews is ignored by the Mommsenian canon (ca. 360), by the canon of the Codex Claromontanus, by St. Optatus of Milevis and a few others; it is not commented on by the Ambrosiaster and Pelagius, while St. Jerome affirms several times that the Latins do not regard the Epistle to the Hebrews as St. Paul's, but he does not express a decided personal opinion (cf. L. Méchineau, L'épître 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 from part of the Western ones. Already papyrus 46 (Chester Beatty collection) places the Epistle to the Hebrews between the Letter to the Romans and the First to the Corinthians. The very ingenious hypotheses of Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen to explain its peculiarities demonstrate their conviction and that of their school regarding its Pauline origin, which was likewise held by the Antiochene, Cappadocian and other Fathers; whence St. Jerome can affirm (Ep. 129 ad Dardanum, 3: PL 22, 1105) that the whole East accepts the Epistle to the Hebrews as St. Paul's. A similar unanimity was lacking in the West; but St. Jerome generalizes too much in adding (ibid.): « Quod si eam Latinorum consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas canonicas... »; which concerns not only the authenticity but also the canonicity. On the other hand, St. Hilary, Lucifer of Cagliari, St. Ambrose, Rufinus, St. Pacian, Priscillian and Marius Victorinus declare in favor of one or the other. St. Augustine, from 409 onward, no longer cites the Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Paul; but in 397 he had deliberately enumerated 14 letters of St. Paul, nor did he subsequently attach excessive importance to the denials of some. The Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), in which St. Augustine took part, had accepted, with a formula of compromise, the Pauline authenticity of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Enchiridion biblicum, Rome 1927, nos. 12, 14); as did more decisively Innocent I (loc. cit., no. 16) and the Council of Carthage of 419 (loc. cit., no. 14). Despite some slight retrogression, the doubts did not return to the field until the 16th century. The Council of Trent, sess. IV, in the decree De canonicis Scripturis, does not resolve the question of authenticity.

Already the Alexandrians, ca. 200, had recognized the difficulties of form against the Pauline authenticity, taken up and amplified by the moderns: absence of the name and of the epistolary preamble, scarcity of personal news and the laconism of the concluding formula, differences of language and style.

A wise prudence or apostolic tactic could have suggested to the author to keep it in the half-light, avoiding the name and the rest. Add to this the very nature of the theme and, perhaps, the redaction by others.

The differences of language and style lose almost all their force if one admits, besides Paul's part, that of a redactor to whom the literary dress of the Epistle to the Hebrews would belong. Since the content is notably different from that of the other Pauline letters, new ideas required new words, or at least words with a new meaning. Therefore the 168 hapax legomena, the 292 words that would not be encountered elsewhere in St. Paul, the morphological and syntactical peculiarities, the preference given to Ἰησοῦς, Χριστός, to Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, in place of the Pauline Χριστός Ἰησοῦς, should not make too great an impression. The same may be said of the command of Greek phrase and period, by which the Epistle to the Hebrews excels among the writings of the New Testament, including those of St. Luke. On the other hand, there is no lack of either defects or similarities with the other letters of St. Paul (cf. B. Heigl, pp. 51-92). Even the undeniable diversity of the introductory formulas in the biblical citations (λέγει, for example, in place of the Pauline γέγραπται) can be ascribed to a redactor. The attribution to God of every word of the Bible, with the names of the human authors generally passed over in silence, does not imply a different conception of inspiration; but, like the imprecise indication of the place cited, it is explained by the religious condition of the recipients (Jewish Christians). Once a rather Alexandrian than Palestinian manner of using the Bible is admitted, one cannot argue from this against the substantial Pauline origin of the writing (W. Leonard, pp. 265-87).

To claim that the Epistle to the Hebrews, in order to be Pauline, cannot represent, from the standpoint of doctrine, anything but a reworking of the preceding letters, would be to confine within too narrow limits the religious genius of Paul, or, better, divine Revelation. Thus, the different way of presenting the law, the figure of Christ, Faith, etc., proves nothing. Far from contradicting one another, these different, even new, aspects are complementary and serve to integrate the single picture of divine Revelation (E. Jacquier, Histoire des livres du Nouveau Test., I, 10th ed., Paris 1924, pp. 471-76; J. Bonsirven, pp. 140-48).

The doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews and its manner of using the Bible would demonstrate, according to some, its dependence on Philo. From him would have been derived the taste for allegory, the personification of the word of God (4, 12 ff.), the conception of conscience, the doctrine on the Son of God, on 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 the Epistle to the Hebrews considers persons and events of the Old Testament, indeed the Old Testament as a whole, in a manner as closely bound as possible to religious life, as types and figures of the new economy. Historical truth, often forgotten in Philo, is followed in its most minute particulars, as the foundation of typology. The points of contact between Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews are more of form than of substance, the spirit and the real content being very different. Even outside the Catholic field, reservations take shape, when not an outright reaction against the alleged Philonism of the Epistle to the Hebrews, to which the work of J. B. Carpzov, Socrate exercitationes in s. Pauli Epistolam ad Hebraeos ex Philone Alexandrino (Helmstadt 1750), had given the start. Cf. W. Leonard, pp. 188-215; J. Bonsirven, pp. 148-55).

There are no decisive internal indications for or against the Pauline authenticity. Too vague are 1, 1 ff.; 5, 12 ff.; 8, 1-5; 9, 1-10.26; 10, 1 ff.; and they refer, if anything, to the date of composition. Nor are the obscure allusion to Timothy "dismissed" and the plan of a journey with him (13, 23) conclusive for the Pauline authorship. Nor, conversely, can 2, 3 be invoked as irreconcilable with the apostolic mission and the independence of Paul's preaching: the associating oneself, with the "we" (here and elsewhere), with the readers is a form of modesty, or else it suggests the idea of the new people of God in opposition to the old (cf. 1, 2).

There are, then, real difficulties against the Pauline authorship in an absolute sense. For this reason today the majority of Catholic critics, while maintaining the substantial part of Paul, incline to place a redactor alongside him.

This solution is almost hinted at 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 they are founded. Apollos (v.), Aristion (v.), Aquila (v.) and Priscilla (according to A. Harnack, the latter particularly, on account of something feminine pervading the letter), Silas, the deacon Philip, Peter himself, have been proposed by some (non-Catholics) as authors, by others as editors. Clement and Origen already name Luke and Clement of Rome, as translators and as editors; while Barnabas was held to be 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 free of traces of the alleged original language. On the other hand, the affinities of form with the writings of Luke and of Clement are too superficial, and they are lacking with the letter attributed to Barnabas. But since this is not his, there remains the possibility of attributing to him the editing of the e. to the E.: Barnabas was a Hellenistic Jew, conversant with the Mosaic ritual, because he was a Levite; acquainted with Alexandrian literature, as a Cypriot; and finally well regarded in the Palestinian milieu.

IV. CANONICITY

Cardinal Cajetan and Erasmus (L. Pirot, Hebrews, in DBs, III, col. 1424) wrongly saw an interdependence between the Pauline authenticity and the canonicity of the Letter to the Hebrews, such that it would not be canonical if it were not by Paul. Only incidentally does the divine authority of a writing depend on its human authenticity. This is not the case here.

St. Jerome, insisting on the difficulties of the Latins regarding the Letter to the Hebrews, lets it be understood that these also touched on its canonicity (Epist. 129 ad Dardanum, 3: PL 22, 1103). In fact the Letter to the Hebrews is rejected by the Roman priest Gaius in the dispute with the Montanist Proclus; it was passed over in silence by many Latins of the 2nd and 3rd centuries (cf. above, III).

On the other hand, the letter is known, probably, by St. Ignatius, by Pseudo-Barnabas, by St. Polycarp, by the Didache, certainly by 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 Letter to the Hebrews. That St. Irenaeus acknowledged it as canonical is known from Eusebius (Hist. ecl., V, 26: PG 20, 309 B) and from some allusion in his works. At Rome it is cited by St. Hippolytus, who however does not believe it to be by Paul, according to Photius. It is cited by the Tractatus Origenis de Libris SS. Scripturarum (ed. P. Batiffol-A. Wilmart, Paris 1900, p. 108) between two passages of St. Paul, but attributing it to Barnabas.

After the middle of the 4th century there is unanimity also in the West, despite some very slight trace of the ancient doubts, which disappears with the decree of Trent.

V. ADDRESSEES, PURPOSE AND DATE OF COMPOSITION

The opinion that the Epistle to the Hebrews was intended for Gentile Christians, put forward by E. M. Roth in 1856 and taken up later by E. Schürer, then by H. von Soden, E. Pfleiderer, R. Perdewitz, M. Dibelius, J. Moffatt and others, among non-Catholics; and presented as possible by the Catholics J. Quentel and A. M. Dubarle, is in conflict with the wide use of the Bible, with the allusions to persons, things and events of the Old Testament, with the meticulous comparisons between the old and the new economy, with the lack of any reference to a conversion from paganism, and finally with the danger, combated by the letter, of a return to Judaism. A Judeo-Christian destination is positively implied 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 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 did not hesitate about the destination of the Epistle to the Hebrews to believers who had come from Judaism, and it also held that the place of destination was Palestine, indeed, more precisely, Jerusalem. On this second point many names have been proposed in modern times, even that of Ravenna; but only two, besides Jerusalem, with some foundation: Alexandria and Rome. For Alexandria the basis is quite weak: the Alexandrian coloring of the letter. For Rome stress is laid on the reference to previous persecutions (10:32 ff.), on the greeting of "those from Italy" (13:24). Th. Zahn thinks of a minority of the community of Rome, to which Rom. 14:1 would also refer.

If the Jerusalem destination is accepted, it better explains the continuous and meticulous use of the Old Testament, the allusion to particulars of the Jewish cult, the laconic expression that Jesus "suffered outside the gate" (13:12) and the invitation to go to him "outside the camp" (13:13), the persistent danger of falling back into Judaism, the pressures of the unconverted that sometimes reached violence. The recipient community has already had martyrs in the person of its "leaders" (10:32 ff. to 13:7); while the faithful have not yet "struggled to the point of blood" (12:4), but have suffered the plundering of their goods and many kinds of harassment (10:32 ff.).

K. Bornhäuser holds that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not addressed to the whole community of Jerusalem, but to the group of converted priests, of whom Acts 6:7 speaks. His argument, however ingenious, is not convincing. That the letter is addressed to an entire community follows from ch. 13, which presupposes various categories of persons, among them also the "leaders" (vv. 7, 17, 24), distinct from the mass of readers and superior to it.

The purpose of the letter, then, is to prevent a falling back toward Judaism and to strengthen the readers in fidelity to the new covenant, whose dignity, definitive character and advantages are extolled.

As for the date of composition, few critics go beyond 90, for the reason that St. Clement of Rome (between 93 and 97) almost certainly uses the Epistle to the Hebrews. Nor is there lacking, even among non-Catholics, anyone who stays within the limit of 70. The majority of Catholic critics do not go beyond 66-67. At the outbreak, in fact, of the Jewish war the conditions of the Judeo-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 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 the Jewish cult as still practiced (9:25; 8:3 ff., etc.), in such a way as still to constitute a danger of seduction. That the occasion was the martyrdom of James the brother of the Lord (c. 62) is not without foundation, but it cannot be proved. There would then have been a crisis in the community of Jerusalem due to external factors and internal discord. The "leaders" (13:17, 24) could be a kind of collegial government, during the vacancy (Eusebius seems to speak of it, Hist. eccl., III, 11: PG 20, 245) between the death of James and the election of his successor Simeon. But we are in the realm of hypotheses; as when one tries to establish the place from which the Epistle to the Hebrews would have been written, starting from 13:24, a text ambiguous even grammatically.

More representative recent commentaries. Catholics: A. Bisping, 2nd ed., Münster 1864; L. Zill, Magosca 1879; A. Schaefer, Münster 1895; I. A. van Steenkiste, Commentarios in omnes s. Pauli Epistolas, II, 6th ed., Brugge 1899; C. Huyghe, Ghent 1901; M. Sales, La S. Bibbia, Il Nuovo Testamento, II, Turin 1914, pp. 476-503; J. Graf, Freiburg im Br. 1918; I. Rohr, Der Hebräerbrief und die geheime Offenbarung des hl. Johannes, 4th ed., Bonn 1932, pp. 1-60; A. Médebielle, in La Ste Bible by L. Pirot, XII, Paris 1938, pp. 269-372; J. Bonsirven, Paris 1943.

Non-Catholics: F. Bleek, 3 parts, Berlin 1828-40; J. Chr. K. von Hofmann, Nördlingen 1873; G. Lünemann, 4th ed., Göttingen 1878; H. Alford, The Greek Testament, IV, London 1894, pp. 1 [87] and 1-273; B. Weiss, 4th ed., Göttingen 1897; H. von Soden, 5th ed. Freiburg im Br. 1899; B. F. Westcott, 3rd ed., London 1903 (reprint 1928); E. Rosenbach, 2nd-3rd ed., Leipzig-Erlangen 1922; J. Moffatt, Edinburgh 1924; H. Windisch, 2nd ed., Tübingen 1931; T. H. Robinson, London 1933; O. Michel, Göttingen 1936.

For the introductory questions and for the theology, besides the introductory notes, the biblical and theological encyclopedias, to be noted among Catholics: B. Heigl, Verfasser und Adresse des Briefes an die Hebräer, Freiburg im 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 E., in Scuola cattolica, 66 (1938), pp. 64-65; A. M. Dubarle, 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, Rome 1939; J. Ungefueuer, Der Graue Priester über dem Hause Gottes, Würzburg 1939; Teodorico da Castel S. Pietro, op. cit., Turin-Rome 1945; C. Spicq, L'authenticité du chapitre XIII de l'Épître aux Hébreux (Coniectanea Neotestamentica, 11), Lund 1947, pp. 226-30; C. Spicq, 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. Riehm, Der Lehrbegriff des Hebräerbriefes, 3 vols., Ludwigsburg 1858-59; E. Ménégoz, La théologie de l'Épître aux Hébreux, Paris 1864; G. Milligan, The theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Edinburgh 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