Text, Exposition, And Notes
The Epistle
to the
HEBREWS
The Epistle to the Hebrews differs from most of the New Testament epistles in that, while it ends like a letter, it does not begin like one; it lacks the customary opening salutation containing the names of the writer and of the people Yet, not only in the personal notes at the end2 but throughout its length, it is clearly addressed to a particular community in which the writer takes a lively interest. Since, however, neither that community nor the writer is expressly identified in the text as it has been preserved to us, the document presents us at the outset with a number of critical problems to which no agreed solution has been found.
1. THE PEOPLE ADDRESSED
The document was known and quoted before the end of the first century,3 but not under its traditional title "To (the) Hebrews." This title goes back to the last quarter of the second century,4 if not earlier, and from that time on it is the regular designation for the work in New Testament manuscripts and Christian writers. How it originated is not known; it may very well be that when, in the course of the second century, the work was included in the Pau line corpus, the editor gave it this title by analogy with "To (the) Romans," etc.5 But what precisely was understood by the term "Hebrews" we cannot say; the title may simply have reflected the editor's impression (shared, no doubt, with other readers) that the people addressed were Jews or, more probably, Jewish Christians.6 There are a few places in the New Testament where the term "Hebrews" is used of a distinct class of Jews or Jewish Christians, as opposed to those who are called Hellenists;7 but it is unlikely that this distinctive usage is reflected in the traditional title of our epistle.8 Indeed, if we think in terms of the Hebrew-Hellenist division, we should naturally classify this epistle as a Hellenistic document.
If the title "To (the) Hebrews"9 is an editorial label attached to the work for convenient reference, and not an original designation, we should not be greatly influenced by it in endeavoring to establish the identity of the addressees. This must be established, as far as possible, on the basis of internal evidence.
No doubt it was natural for second-century readers, like many others since their day, to think of the addressees as Jews or Jewish Christians. The whole argument is conducted against a background of Old Testament allusion; considerable familiarity with the Levitical ritual, and interest in it, are presupposed. Yet all this in itself does not require either the author or the people addressed to be Jewish; we have known Gentile Christians who were thoroughly familiar with the Old Testament, accepted it as sacred and authoritative Scripture, and manifested a lively interest in the details of the Mosaic tabernacle and the Levitical offerings, in which they found a remarkably full adumbration of the gospel. So, it has been pointed out, our author's knowledge of the Levitical ritual, like the knowledge which he presupposes in his readers, is a literary knowledge-that is to say, it is drawn from the Old Testament writings (with the aid, possibly, of some midrashic tradition)1° and not from any firsthand acquaintance with procedure in the Jerusalem temple in the closing years of the Second Jewish Commonwealth. A number of scholars in the past generation or two, among whom the commentators Moffatt and Windisch are outstanding,11 have maintained that the epistle was addressed to Gentile Christians, who were in danger of committing apostasy and thus renouncing true religion altogether-"deserting the living God," as our author puts it (3:12). If Jewish Christians relapsed into Judaism, it is implied, this would not involve a renunciation of "the living God"; relapsing into Judaism would at least mean that they continued to worship the God of Israel. And, further, is not a pagan past indicated in the repeated phrase "dead works"-when the readers are reminded of the "foundation of repentance from dead works" which, once laid, cannot be laid again (6:1), and of the efficacy of the blood of Christ to "cleanse our conscience from dead works so as to worship the living God" (9:14)?12
From our author's point of view deliberate disobedience to the living God was practical apostasy against him, whether those guilty of it were Jewish or Gentile by birth. When he warns his readers against falling away from the living God, he adduces the example of the Israelites in the wilderness under Moses who disobeyed God, rejected Moses' leadership, and failed to enter the promised land. What was possible for Israelites then was equally possible for Israelites now. And the "dead works" are things which call for repentance and cleansing, on the part of Jews and Gentiles without discrimination. More particularly, the whole "foundation" of 6:1f. implies the Jewish antecedents of the readers, as does the description of Christ's death in 9:15 as procuring "redemption of the transgressions committed under the first covenant."
Again, our author's appeals to the Old Testament scriptures reflect his confidence that his readers, even if their loyalty to the gospel is wearing thin, will recognize their authority. This they would indeed do if they were Jews; they had recognized the authority of those scriptures before they became Christians, and if they relapsed from Christianity into Judaism they would continue to recognize their authority. Converts to Christianity from paganism, on the other hand, adopted the Old Testament as their sacred book along with the Christian faith; if they were tempted to give up their Christian faith, the Old Testament would go with it. Not only so, but the very terms in which our author assumes on their part an acknowledgment of Old Testament authority imply that they accepted Jewish premises; for example, commenting on the announcement in of a priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, he asks: "Now if perfection were attainable through the Levitical priesthood. . . , what further need would there be for another priest to arise after Melchizedek's order, instead of being called after Aaron's?" (7:11). This argument suggests that the people addressed took it for granted (rightly) that the Levitical priesthood was instituted by divine authority, and also might be inclined to take it for granted (wrongly) that it represented the final stage in this aspect of God's provision for them. Converts from paganism would not be so assured of the divine institution of the Levitical priesthood, and to the author's argument "if perfection were attainable through the Levitical priesthood. . ." their answer would naturally be: "We never thought it was!" And while, if we were compelled to regard the addressees as Gentiles, we might give some sort of meaning to the exhortation in 13:13 to go forth to Christ "outside the camp," such language is much more intelligible if addressed to Jews.
Some students of the epistle, concluding that the people addressed were Jews, have gone further and tried to identify them with a particular class of Jews. Karl Bornhauser, for example, inferred from such a passage as 5:12 (where the readers are told that by this time they should have been able to teach others) that they were not rank-and-file Jewish Christians, but more probably converts from the Jewish priesthood-some of the "great number of the priests" who "were obedient to the faith" in the period before the expulsion of Hellenistic believers from Jerusalem (Acts 6:7).14 Besides, priests would have a natural interest in the ritual details of our author's argument. Further points in support of this view are adduced by C. Spicq in his great commentary on the epistle.15 Seven years after the publication of his commentary, Spicq elaborated this part of his thesis by arguing that these converted priests were "Esseno-Christians," including former members of the Qumran sect, whose "doctrinal and biblical formation, intellectual preoccupations and religious presuppositions" were well known to our author.16
Since the discovery of the Qumran documents in 1947 and the following years, repeated attempts have been made to bring their evidence into some kind of relation with the Epistle to the Hebrews. In 1955 F. M. Braun expressed the view that "of all the New Testament writings, the Epistle to the Hebrews is the one which gives the fullest answer to the basic tendencies of the [Qumran] sect."17 Since then a number of other writers have elaborated this statement, none so fully as H. Kosmala in his work Hebraer-EssenerChristen, published in 1959, in which it is argued that the people addressed in the epistle were not Christians, but Jews who had come so far on the way to Christianity, but had stopped short of the goal-that they were, in fact, people holding views very similar to those of the Qumran sect and other Essenes. In his introduction to Hebrews in the "Layman's Bible Commentary" J. W. Bowman maintains that the recipients of the epistle were members of the Hellenistic-Jewish Christian community of Palestine who had come under the influence of the Qumran sect. There were serious defects in their understanding of the gospel, and these the author set himself to correct. The particular group of Hellenists addressed is located by Bowman at Sychar, where John the Baptist and Jesus, and later Philip, had preached. But since Philip's evangelistic campaign in those parts, "the centre of Christian evangelistic effort had passed from Jerusalem to Syrian Antioch, bypassing Samaria and its Hellenistic-Jewish community on the way!"18 In his volume on Hebrews in the Anchor Bible G. W. Buchanan envisages the recipients of the document as members of a monastic community who had come to the vicinity of "Mount Zion .... the city of the living God" (12:22) to await the signal for their entry into the heritage of the promised land. The time was at hand: it would be marked by the overthrow of the Romans and the enthronement of Jesus as Messiah over a liberated Israel, which would be tantamount to the establishment of "the heavenly Jerusalem."19
The most that can be said on this score, however, is that the recipients of the epistle were probably Jewish believers in Jesus whose background was not so much the normative Judaism represented by rabbinical tradition as the nonconformist Judaism of which the Essenes and the Qumran community are outstanding representatives, but not the only representatives.
One prominent feature of this nonconformist Judaism was its practice of ceremonial washings beyond those prescribed in the law.20 Josephus, for example, tells us that the Essenes were distinguished from other Jews when they performed their sacrificial duties "by the superiority of the purifications which they habitually practised."21 But the Essenes were not the only Jewish groups of which this could be said. There is evidence, indeed, that such "baptist" groups were found in the Diaspora as well as in Judaea. Philo does not speak of ceremonial washings when he describes the settlement of the Therapeutae near Lake Mareotis in Egypt22-he does not speak of them either in his descriptions of the Essenes-but the Therapeutae are certainly to be reckoned as an Egyptian offshoot of the Palestinian nonconformist tradition. As for the Jewish community in Rome, it appears to have preserved noncon formist features, especially in the matter of ceremonial washings, which in due course were taken over into Roman Christianity, as the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus testifies at the beginning of the third century A.D.23 If the Epistle to the Hebrews was addressed to a group of Jewish Christians which retained such features, certain points which the author makes, such as his reference to "teaching about ablutions" in 6:2, could have had a more immediate relevance to their situation than might be readily apparent to twentiethcentury readers.
The addressees appear, then, to have been a group of Jewish Christians who had never seen or heard Jesus in person, but learned of him (as the writer of the epistle also did) from some who had themselves listened to him.24 Since their conversion they had been exposed to persecution-particularly at one stage shortly after the beginning of their Christian career25-but while they had had to endure public abuse, imprisonment, and the looting of their property, they had not yet been called upon to die for their faith.26 They had given practical evidence of their faith by serving their fellow-Christians and especially by caring for those of their number who suffered most in the time of persecution.27 Yet their Christian development had been arrested; instead of pressing ahead they were inclined to come to a full stop in their spiritual progress, if not indeed to slip back to a stage which they had left.28 Very probably they were reluctant to sever their last ties with a religion which enjoyed the protection of Roman law and face the risks of irrevocable commitment to the Christian way. The writer, who has known them, or known about them, for a considerable time, and feels a pastoral concern for their welfare, warns them against falling back, for this may result in falling away from their Christian faith altogether; he encourages them with the assurance that they have everything to lose if they fall back, but everything to gain if they press on.29
We may infer from the epistle that they were Hellenists; they knew the Old Testament in the Greek version. It is implied, too, that their knowledge of the ancient sacrificial ritual of Israel was derived from the reading of the Old Testament and not from firsthand contact with the temple services in Jerusalem. Perhaps they formed a "house church" within the wider fellowship of a city church, and were tending to neglect the bonds of fellowship which bound them to other Christians outside their own inner circle.
II. DESTINATION
Where did they live? We do not know. Opinions have ranged between Judaea in the east and Spain30 in the west.
If their knowledge of the Jewish ritual was not derived from firsthand contact with the temple services, then Jerusalem seems to be excluded. They may, of course, have had an earlier association with the Jerusalem church; we recall the large exodus of Hellenistic believers from Jerusalem in the persecution which followed the death of Stephen. Those Hellenists scattered in many directions, carrying the gospel wherever they went;31 one can easily think of the readers of this epistle as one of the communities of new believers founded at that time.
Even so, Jerusalem has not been without its advocates as the place to which the epistle was sent.32 Sir William Ramsay, for example, hazarded the guess that it was written to the Jerusalem church from Caesarea during Paul's imprisonment in that city (A.D. 57-59) by one of his companions, Philip the evangelist perhaps.33 C. H. Turner argued that it was sent to the Jerusalem church shortly before the outbreak of the war against Rome in A.D. 66, when they "had to face the issue squarely between the abandonment of their Christianity and the abandonment of their city. Criticism [he added] which shuts its eyes to such patent historical probabilities stands self-condemned."34 Arnold Ehrhardt revived the theory of Franz Overbeck that the epistle was sent as "a message of consolation from the Church at Rome to Christians in the Holy Land after the fall of Jerusalem."35
But the religious situation in Jerusalem was dominated by the temple, to which no explicit reference is made by our author. When an earlier leader of his school, Stephen, addressed himself to the situation in Jerusalem, the temple occupied a prominent place in his polemic-the temple, moreover, in express distinction from the movable tabernacle of earlier days.36 Our author has much to say about the tabernacle, but not about the temple. The priesthood and ritual associated with the tabernacle, of course, were in principle those associated with the temple too; but what we find in the epistle is literary allusion to the former and not, as might have been expected in an exhortation addressed to Jerusalem, contemporary allusion to the latter. Even at the latest reasonable date for the epistle, there would still have been a few members of the Jerusalem church who had seen and heard Jesus for themselves and did not have to depend on the testimony of others. And when the writer refers to his readers' long-standing and continued service "to his holy people" (6:10), we may reflect that throughout the apostolic age the Jerusalem church is more prominent as a recipient than as a giver of such ministry.
Other places in Palestine have been suggested: J. W. Bowman, as we have seen, thinks of Samaria (preferably Sychar); C. Spicq thinks of Caesarea, but regards Syrian Antioch as more probable.37 T. W. Manson, leaving the beaten track, suggests Colossae or some neighboring place in the Lycus valley; he detects in the epistle references to the "Colossian heresy" at an earlier stage than that which it had reached by the time Paul wrote the Epistle to the Colossians.38 W. F. Howard thinks of Ephesus; he envisages the people addressed as a group of wealthy and cultivated Jews who had been converted during Paul's Ephesian ministry, but whose faith waned after Paul's imprisonment and subsequent execution in Rome.39 They had little sympathy with their fellow-Christians of Gentile birth, whom they despised as low-born and too much influenced by the lax morality of their pagan days. Cyprus has commended itself to Antony Snell;4° this hangs together with his ascription of the authorship to Barnabas, whose close association with Cy prus is well attested. H. Appel, F. lo Bue, and H. W. Montefiore have argued for a Corinthian destination.41
A number of scholars have thought of Alexandria in Egypt as the city where the readers lived.42 Some Alexandrian association is evident throughout the epistle; the author is evidently acquainted with the literature of Alexandrian Judaism, like Wisdom and 4 Maccabees, and especially the writings of Philo. But this speaks more for his association with the city than for theirs. The Muratorian Canon, which makes no mention of Hebrews, does refer to an epistle "to the Alexandrines"; but as this is described as forged in Paul's name to support Marcion's heresy, it takes a powerful stretch of the imagination to identify it with our epistle. In the nineteenth century J. E. C. Schmidt,43 A. Hilgenfeld,44 and S. Davidson45 argued for Alexandria; they were followed in the twentieth century by G. Hoennicke,46 C. J. Cadoux,47 and S. G. F. Brandon.48 Alexandria indeed has much which could be urged in its favor;49 but there is one great obstacle in the way of thinking that the epistle was sent there. That is that precisely in Alexandria the belief in its Pauline authorship first arose, and it is difficult to suppose that the Christians of the city to which the epistle was sent so quickly forgot who sent it to them and ascribed it to another. Clement of Alexandria refers to someone called "the blessed elder"-possibly his teacher Pantaenus-as saying that Paul, being the apostle of the Gentiles, wrote for the Hebrews anonymously since he recognized our Lord as Apostle to the Hebrews.50 Thus, about a century after the epistle was written, it was being ascribed to Paul at Alexandria-perhaps because it was at Alexandria that the Epistle to the Hebrews was for the first time copied into a codex as part of the corpus Paulinum.51 But could this ascription have been made so soon in a place where the true authorship was most likely to have been remembered?
The first place where, according to our extant literature, the Epistle to the Hebrews appears to have been known is Rome.52 For Clement of Rome shows clear evidence of his acquaintance with it in the letter which he wrote on behalf of the Roman church to the Corinthian church c. A.D. 96.53 Unfortunately he drops no hint about its authorship; he was writing for his contemporaries, not for us. But the Roman church, and the west in general, took a long time before they consented to regard it as one of the Pauline letters; their resistance to the belief in its Pauline authorship springs in all probability from an original positive knowledge that it was not written by Paul.
No certain inference in this regard can be drawn from the greetings which the writer sends his readers from "those from Italy" (13:24).54 "Those from Italy" may have lived in Italy or outside Italy, so far as the language is concerned; and while the message is most easily construed in agreement with a Roman destination for the letter, it would not necessarily exclude Rome (or some other place in Italy) as the place where it was written.
What has been said above of the presence of "nonconformist" Jewish elements in the Christian community of Rome would chime in well with a Roman destination. There were many other places in the Diaspora as well as in Palestine where such elements were to be found, but it is at Rome that we have the best attestation of their survival for several generations in Christian practice.
One of the best-known statements of the case for the Roman destination of the epistle was an article by Adolf Harnack in the first issue of Zeitschrift ftir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, in which he related it to the early history of Christianity at Rome and envisaged it as sent to a "house church" in that city by someone well acquainted with the addressees.55 Later William Manson presented a persuasive case in the Baird Lecture delivered in New College, Edinburgh, in 1950.56 The Roman church, he inferred from Rom. 11:13, 18, had a Jewish-Christian base. As a whole it had accepted the implications of the Gentile world-mission, but a small conservative enclave within it clung to the more conservative principles of traditional Judaism, and to this enclave in particular Hebrews is addressed. Professor Manson found a straight line running from the ministry of Stephen (the record of which in Acts forms the prelude to the rise of the Gentile world-mission) to the argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. His thesis will be found to influence the present commentary at many points; but certainty on the destination of the epistle is unattainable in the present state of our knowledge, and fortunately its exegesis is for the most part independent of this question.
III. AUTHORSHIP
The Alexandrian belief that Paul was the author influenced the judgment of eastern Christianity,58 and ultimately, from the middle of the fourth century, of western Christianity too. But even at Alexandria, the sense of literary criticism possessed by the leaders of the catechetical school made it plain that Pauline authorship could not be predicated simpliciter of this epistle as it could of Romans or Galatians. Attempts were therefore made to reconcile the Pauline ascription with the linguistic data. Clement of Alexandria in his Hypotyposes59 said that it was written by Paul for Hebrews in the Hebrew language, but that Luke translated it and published it for the Greeks; thus he endeavored to account for the similarity in style between Hebrews and the Lukan writings. (As for the absence of the Pauline superscription, he accounted for that by saying that "in writing for Hebrews who had conceived a prejudice against him and suspected him, he very prudently did not put them off at the outset by setting down his name.")6° Origen, a generation later, knowing as he did Hebrew in addition to Greek, probably realized that the Greek of the epistle bore no sign of having been translated from Hebrew.61 His account of its authorship is as follows:
The character of the diction of the epistle superscribed to the Hebrews lacks the apostle's rudeness of expression (a rudeness of expression or style which he himself acknowledged); the epistle is more idiomatically Greek in the composition of its diction. This will be acknowledged by anyone who is skilled to discern differences of style. But on the other hand the thoughts of the epistle are admirable and in no way inferior to those of the acknowledged writings of the apostle. The truth of this will be admitted by any one who pays attention to the reading of the apostle...
Although the Pauline authorship was resisted in the west until late in the fourth century, the only positive ascription of authorship to come down to us from the west during that period is Tertullian's; he appeals to the epistle as having greater authority than the Shepherd of Hermas because of the eminence of its author, Barnabas, and he names Barnabas as the author of the epistle not as though he were expressing a private judgment of his own but as though this were a commonly agreed ascription in his circle.63 The Muratoriart Canon, Irenaeus,64 Hippolytus,65 and Gaius of Rome66 did not regard the epistle as Pauline. Eusebius (c. A.D. 325) remarks that even in his day some among the Romans did not consider it to be the apostle's.67 Half a century later the writer whom we call Ambrosiaster did not include Hebrews in the Pauline epistles on which he wrote commentaries; to him it is always an anonymous work, although he accepts it as canonical.68
It was Jerome and Augustine who swayed opinion in the west toward accepting Hebrews as a Pauline epistle-not that they were convinced that it was so on grounds of literary criticism but rather because they were "moved" (to quote Augustine) "by the prestige of the eastern churches which include this epistle too among the canonical writings."69 Even so, the earliest synodical promulgations of the canon in the west preserved for some time a distinction between this epistle and the others ascribed to Paul: both the Synod of Hippo in 393 and the Third Synod of Carthage in 397 enumerate "Of Paul the apostle, thirteen epistles; of the same to the Hebrews, one." But the Sixth Synod of Carthage (A.D. 419) assigns "fourteen epistles" in so many words to Paul, in terms which Athanasius of Alexandria had used in his Festal Letter of A.D. 367.70 From then on the Pauline ascription became traditional in the west as in the east, although commentators of critical judgment continued to speak of Clement of Rome or Luke as translator or editor of the epistle. Thus Thomas Aquinas says that "Luke, who was an excellent advocate (prolocutor), translated it from Hebrew into that elegant Greek."71
But with the reopening of traditional questions in the age of the Reformation, fresh attention was directed to the authorship of Hebrews. Erasmus regarded the style of the epistle as excluding Pauline authorship, although he conceded that it was inspired by the mind of Paul.72 Calvin73 thought of Luke or Clement of Rome as the author, not merely translator or editor; while Luther74 was apparently the first to make the brilliant guess that the author was Apollos-a guess which has commended itself to many since his day, including H. Alford, E. Riehm, E. Reuss, A. Hilgenfeld, A. Klostermann, T. Zahn, H. Appel, J. V. Bartlet (in his later years), T. W. Manson, W. F. Howard, C. Spicq, and H. W. Montefiore.75 The Alexandrian characteristics of the thought, style, and vocabulary of the epistle have been thought to speak in favor of Apollos's authorship; William Manson, however, while conceding that "Apollos would admirably suit the part in point of his JewishAlexandrian origin and training," finds it "difficult to think that the Alexandrian Church would not have preserved some knowledge of the fact in view of the distinguished role of this son of Alexandria in the world-mission, and that Clement would not have mentioned him in writing to the Corinthians in whose history Apollos had played a notable part." He adds that "other attempts to discover the writer's identity have no greater interest than a parlour-game."76
Among those other attempts, mention should certainly be made of Harnack's, who argued that the epistle was written by Priscilla and Aquila, with Priscilla as the dominant partner.77 Their quality as teachers is attested by the instruction which they gave to Apollos;78 they were closely associated with Timothy;79 they were host and hostess to a house church in Rome80 (if the salutations in Rom. 16:3-16 are intended for Rome); the transition back and forth between "we" and "I" would be suitable to a married couple;81 the disappearance of the author's name from the memory of the church could be explained by the same antifeminist tendency as the Western text (more particularly Codex D) displays in toning down the relatively prominent part which Priscilla plays in Acts.82
A case can be made out for several of the suggested names because they have left no other writings by which we could judge whether Hebrews is written in their style or not.83 Paul is in the opposite case; it is because we have other indubitable writings from his pen that we can say confidently with Calvin: "The manner of teaching and the style sufficiently show that Paul was not the author, and the writer himself confesses in the second chapter that he was one of the disciples of the apostles, which is wholly different from the way in which Paul spoke of himself."84 What Paul and the author of Hebrews have in common is the basic apostolic teaching; but when we come to distinctive features we may say with certainty that the thought of the epistle is not Paul's, the language is not Paul's, and the technique of Old Testament quotation is not Paul's. In brief, "I can adduce no reason to show that Paul was its author."85 So Calvin wisely sums up.86
The author was a second-generation Christian, well versed in the study of the Septuagint, which he interpreted according to a creative exegetical principle. He had a copious vocabulary and was the master of a fine rhetorical-style, completely different from Paul's; we might well describe him as "a learned man.... mighty in the scriptures."87 He was a Hellenist who inherited the outlook of those Hellenists described in Acts 6-8; 11:19ff., the associates of Stephen and Philip, pioneers in the Gentile mission.
IV. DATE
When was it written? In the absence of any clear evidence for the identity of the recipients or the author, the date of the epistle is also uncertain. A first century date is required by the external evidence (the near-quotation of the epistle by Clement of Rome C. A.D. 96) and by the internal evidence, according to which the author and, probably, his readers came to know the gospel from people who themselves had listened to the teaching of Jesus (2:3). If Timothy, whose release is announced in 13:23, is (as seems likely) Paul's junior colleague of that name, a date within his active lifetime is indicated, but as we do not know when Timothy was born (he was considerably younger than Paul, and may not have been out of his teens when Paul co-opted him as a fellow-missionary in A.D. 49) or when he died, this does not help us to fix a more precise date.
If the words in 12:4, "you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood," are to be taken literally (as is most probable), they would mean that the community addressed had not yet been called upon to suffer death for the faith, whatever lesser forms of persecution it had endured. This would seem to rule out the Jerusalem church; and if the epistle was sent to Rome, it would have to be dated before the Neronian persecution of A.D. 65 (the minor persecution of 10:32-34 could be placed in Rome about A.D. 49).89 If, however, the language of 12:4 is figurative (in the sense that "unto blood" does not imply the actual shedding of their blood)90-and this seems a less natural way to take it-then the field is much more widely open. Zahn identified the addressees as Christians in Rome under the principate of Domitian (A.D. 81-96), and the events of 10:32-34 as those of A.D. 65.91 The view tentatively adopted in this commentary is that the epistle was written before, but not long before, the outbreak of persecution in Rome in A.D. 65.
Another line of approach to its dating is to ask how it stands in relation to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and the cessation of the cultus in A.D. 70. True, there is no overt reference to the temple; the ritual details which figure in the epistle are mostly taken from the Old Testament account of the tabernacle. Yet in principle the tabernacle and the temple were one; the ritual of the former was the ritual of the latter. And our author writes as if the ritual were still being enacted. "The priests go into the first tent continually in the discharge of their sacred offices; but into the second goes the high priest only, and that once a year, not without blood, which he offers for himself and for the people's sins of ignorance. In this way the Holy Spirit shows that, while the first tent still stands, the way into the holy place has not yet been opened up. This is a parable with a bearing on the present time: according to this order of worship gifts and sacrifices are offered which can never make the worshiper perfect as regards the conscience" (9:6-9). The recurring present tense in this passage would be more pointed if this state of affairs were still going on; but it could be explained as a literary present, setting forth rather vividly the state of affairs portrayed in the Old Testament record. Again, when our author quotes Jeremiah's prophecy of the new covenant,92 he remarks that the very mention of a new covenant implies the supersession of the old one, and adds: "And that which is becoming old and aging will soon disappear" (8:13). This would be especially apt in the period immediately preceding A.D. 70; on the other hand, it could be said that he is simply stating a general truth and applying it to the situation in hand with the implication that Jeremiah's prophecy in itself involved the impending dissolution of the old covenant and all that went with it.
Later, in mentioning the endless repetition of the sacrifices offered under the law, he says that they could never bring the offerers to perfection (that is, to immediate and permanent access to God)-"otherwise they would have ceased to be offered" (10:1f.). This could mean that the Old Testament legislation made no provision for the end of the sacrificial order, but envisaged its indefinite continuation; but if in fact the sacrificial order had come to a full stop by the time our author wrote (as it did in the summer of A.D. 70),93 the knowledge of this fact would probably have modified his wording here. In short, there are several passages which, while they do not demand a date before A.D. 70, would have special point if in fact the Jerusalem temple was still standing and the cultus still going on; while there is no passage which suggests that sanctuary and cultus were by now things of the past.
V. CANONICITY
Canonicity and authorship are in principle quite distinct, but in the early Christian centuries, as a practical issue, the canonicity of New Testament books and their apostolic authorship were frequently involved with each other, and nowhere more so than in relation to this epistle. Augustine and Jerome, as we have seen, followed Alexandrian precedent in recognizing Hebrews as one of Paul's epistles not so much because they were convinced on internal evidence that it was by him (in point of fact they entertained private doubts on the matter), as because the ascription of apostolic authorship safeguarded its canonical status.95
Hebrews may be said to have first received some sort of canonical status when it was incorporated by a second-century editor (at Alexandria, in all probability) into a copy of the corpus Paulinum.96 From that time forth its status was not questioned in Alexandria.97 Origen did not doubt its scriptural merit, whatever reservations he might cherish about its authorship. He wrote homilies on it but, because he knew that some churches did not accept it, he classed it as a "disputed" book. Later, Eusebius of Caesarea included it among the "acknowledged" books, although he knew of the doubts about it in the west.98 Athanasius of Alexandria, in his thirty-ninth festal letter (A.D. 367), reckoned it as a matter of course among the "fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul" when enumerating the books of the New Testament. Even before the time of Athanasius the example of Alexandria was followed in Syria: the Syriac fathers, from Ephrem (c. 300-373) onward, make it clear that its canonicity and apostolicity were undisputed in their part of the world. The Peshitta New Testament included it from the first.
It was otherwise in the west. Some histories of the New Testament canon have not made it sufficiently plain that for a book to be known and quoted is not tantamount to its being received as canonical. This distinction is well illustrated by the history of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the west. So far as extant records go, it was known and quoted in the west some decades before it was known in the east, but the west was slow in according it canonical status. Clement of Rome knows it so well that he weaves its language into his own,99 but there is no suggestion in his letter that Hebrews is regarded as canonical or apostolic. Hermas almost certainly knows it.100 Valentinus ap pears to know it and echoes its language;101 there are possible, though not certain, allusions to it in Justin Martyr.102 Gaius of Rome evidently did not treat it as apostolic or canonical; neither did Irenaeus or Hippolytus. Irenaeus's position is noteworthy in view of his Asian provenance.103 Tertullian, as we have seen, personally thought highly of it and was disposed to accord it near-apostolic authority, although he accepted Barnabas as its author. Ultimately, however, the Alexandrian position on canonicity and authorship alike triumphed in the west, and we have seen that the epistle was included in the Canon by the Synod of Hippo (393) and by the Third (397) and Sixth (419) Synods of Carthage.
"O felix culpa!" says W. F. Howard, suggesting that we owe the presence of Hebrews in the New Testament to "the mistaken critical judgement of the ancient Church."too But one may wonder whether, in fact, the intrinsic merit of the epistle would not ultimately have won a place in the canon for it even had the name of Paul never been associated with it. At least, when the question was reopened at the Reformation, the uncertainty about its authorship did not affect its canonical recognition. Luther, indeed, gave it what might be called deuterocanonical status, but this was not on account of its non-Pauline authorship but rather because of his personal estimate of its quality, for he reckoned that some "wood, straw, or hay" might be found mingled with the "gold, silver, and precious stones" which were built into its fabric.105 Calvin, on the other hand, while he was perfectly sure that Paul was in no sense its author, set a high value on its authority. "I class it without hesitation among the apostolical106 writings," he said; "I do not doubt that it has been through the craft of Satan that any have been led to dispute its authority. There is, indeed, no book in Holy Scripture which speaks so clearly of the priesthood of Christ, which so highly exalts the virtue and dignity of that only true sacrifice which He offered by His death, which so abundantly deals with the use of ceremonies as well as their abrogation, and, in a word, so fully explains that Christ is the end of the Law. Let us therefore not allow the Church of God or ourselves to be deprived of so great a benefit, but firmly defend the possession of it."107
The canonical quality of the epistle, having thus been so clearly and properly distinguished from the question of authorship, continues, as is most justly due, to be acknowledged by the church.
VI. HEBREWS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT
Apart from the personal notes at the end the Epistle to the Hebrews is not an epistle or letter in the strict sense of the term. Its literary character is defined for us by the author himself: it is a "word of exhortation," as he puts it in 13:22.108 A "word of exhortation" is a form of sermon or homily, as is made plain in Acts 13:15, where the rulers of the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch invite Paul and Barnabas to speak if they have "any word of exhortation for the people." The sermon by Paul, which is summarized in the following verses, is a good example of a "word of The main difference between such a sermon and the Epistle to the Hebrews is that the former was spoken, the latter written. "It is a midrash in rhetorical Greek prose-it is a homily."110
A synagogue homily would be based on one or more biblical texts, drawn by preference from the lessons for the day. Professor Aileen Guilding points out that the early chapters of Hebrews appear to be based on the readings for Pentecost in the three successive years of the triennial lectionaryGen. 14:18-15:21 (the Melchizedek story and the covenant with Abram), Ex. 19 (the arrival at Sinai), and Num. 18 (the account of Aaron's budding rod)'11-and on Ps. 110, which was reached at Pentecost in the third year of the triennial reciting of the She further suggests that the season between Pentecost and New Year formed the background of a piece of Christian didache, possibly called "The Way," and points out that the theme of the "new and living way" is prominent in Hebrews, while Pentecostal and New Year readings are telescoped in Heb. 12:18ff. (the enrolment in heaven and divine judgment being New Year themes).'13
The form in which the Old Testament is quoted throughout the epistle is regularly that of the Septuagint version. Insofar as we can distinguish two Septuagint recensions, corresponding in the main to the texts exhibited by the Codices A (Alexandrinus) and B (Vaticanus), about twice as many of the quotations in Hebrews agree with the A-text as with the B-text. But it is unsatisfactory to categorize Septuagint quotations in a work of the first century A.D. on the basis of manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries. Our author used a type of text earlier than either the A-text or the B-text as we know these from extant witnesses, and one which occasionally deviates from both.114 He may have selected his variants (where he knew more readings than one) for interpretational suitability. These variants were sometimes borrowed from other parts of the Greek Bible or from Philo, but appear for the most part to have been introduced on his own responsibility. It has been argued on the basis of his use of certain Old Testament quotations that he was familiar with the interpretations of Philo and used some quotations in such a way as to counter these interpretations.
The variations which he introduced into the Septuagint text have to some extent influenced the form in which the Septuagint is quoted by early Christian writers, and even the text of some manuscripts of the Septuagint, but in extremely few instances (not more than two) do they appear to have influenced the A-text or B-text.
To our author the Old Testament is a divine oracle from first to last; not only passages which in their original setting are the direct utterance of God (such as Ps. 110:4, "Thou art a priest for ever ...") but others are treated as spoken by God-like the words of Moses in Deut. 32:43 (Heb. 1:6) and the words of psalmists concerning the messengers of God (Ps. 104:4, quoted in Heb. 1:7), addressed to a royal bridegroom (Ps. 45:6f., quoted in Heb. 1:8f.), or addressed to God (Ps. 102:25-27, quoted in Heb. 1:10-12). Heb. 3:7 introduces a quotation from Ps. 95:7-11 with the words "as the Holy Spirit says"-words which apply not only to the divine utterance quoted in Ps. 95:8ff., but to the psalmist's cry which precedes them: "If only you would listen to his voice today!" (Ps. 95:7b). In the details of the Old Testament sanctuary the Holy Spirit signifies spiritual truths for the present time (Heb. 9:8). The psalmist's words of consecration and obedience in Ps. 40:6-8 are spoken by the Messiah "at his coming into the world" (Heb. 10:5-7).116 The narrative statement of Gen. 2:2 ("God ... rested on the seventh day from all his works") is treated as a divine utterance in Heb. 4:4.
The Old Testament writings are treated by our author as a mashal, a parable or mystery which awaits its and the explanation given in the pages of the epistle takes the form of messianic typology. "We never find in our author the least trace of that allegorical exegesis which was to remain, alas, the specialty of the Alexandrian school"118 and which is illustrated so abundantly in the works of Philo, a generation or so earlier than our epistle. This contrast is the more marked because of the affinities in thought and language which have otherwise been traced between our author and Philo.119 But Philo treats the Old Testament characters and incidents as allegories setting forth eternal principles of ethics and metaphysics, while our author treats them as types of Christ and the gospel, temporary foreshadowings of the fulfilment which has now taken place once for all. By Philo, for example, Melchizedek is allegorized as Reason;120 by our author he is interpreted as a type of Christ, "made like the Son of God" (7:3). There is much in common between the two writers' detailed exegetical procedures-both, for example, emphasize that Melchizedek, king of Salem, is "king of righteousness" and "king of peace"121-but their basic hermeneutical principles are quite distinct. The historical perspective of the Old Testament is well preserved in Hebrews because our author thinks of the age of anticipation as foreshadowing the age of fulfilment; he finds it necessary to look before and after. In chs. 3 and 4 he distinguishes between the wilderness period, when the Israelites looked forward to a "rest" which in fact they did not fully experience when they entered Canaan under Joshua; the age of David, "after such a long time" (4:7), when the same "rest" was still spoken of; and the present time, when there still remains "a sabbath rest for the people of God" (4:9). And in ch. 11 he shows a clear appreciation of the historical sequence of the Old Testament, as men and women of faith drew ever nearer to the time when God would fulfil the promises which they themselves greeted "from afar" (11:13).
The framework of much of our author's argument is supplied by quotations from the Psalter. Apart from the quotations from Pss. 2, 104, 45, 102, and 110 in ch. 1, we may think of the use made of Ps. 8:4-6 in ch. 2, of Ps. 95:7-11 in chs. 3 and 4, of Ps. 110:4 in 5:6-10; 6:20; 7:24, and of Ps. 40:6-8 in 10:5-10. First a section of the Psalter is quoted more or less verbatim, and then words and phrases from the quotation are incorporated into the following exposition, somewhat in the manner now familiar to us from the pesher texts at Qumran.122 Again, more than once he starts a phase of his argument with a psalm quotation and then turns to other Old Testament passages deal ing with the same theme for material to elaborate his argument.123 Thus he elaborates his exegesis of Ps. 95:7-11 with references to the Pentateuchal narrative of the wilderness wanderings (Heb. 3:12ff.); and his exegesis of Ps. 110:4 by reference to the narrative of Melchizedek in Gen. 14 (Heb. 7:lff.).
VII. HEBREWS AND THE GOSPEL
As regards his person, Christ is greater than all the servants and spokesmen of God who have gone before-not only greater than other human servants and spokesmen (even Moses) but greater than angels. For he is the Son of God, his agent in creating and maintaining the universe, who yet became the Son of Man and submitted to humiliation and death. He is now exalted above all the heavens, enthroned at God's right hand, and he lives forever there as his people's representative.
The special aspect of the person and ministry of Christ which is emphasized in this epistle is his priesthood. This epistle, in fact, is the only New Testament document which expressly calls him a priest, although his priesthood is implied in others.125 One source of our author's priestly Christology is the Old Testament: if the ruler addressed in Ps. 110 is the Davidic Messiah, as was believed by Jews and Christians alike, then it is the Messiah who is acclaimed in v. 4 of that psalm as "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek"-the perfect priest-king.126 But the mere citation of an Old Testa ment text would have been pointless if the character and work of Christ had not had a recognizably priestly quality. And our author stresses repeatedly Jesus' qualifications to be his people's effective high priest-not only was he personally "holy, free from guile and defilement" (7:26) but having been tested "in all respects" as his people are, he can sympathize with them and supply the help they need in the hour of trial (4:15f.; 2:18).
This presentation of Jesus agrees with the testimony of the Gospels. In Luke 22:32 he prays for Peter, lest his faith should fail; in John 17 we hear him pray his prayer of consecration as he offers up his life to God on his followers' behalf, and his prayer of intercession for them that they may fulfil their witness in the world as he has fulfilled his.127 Nor is this kind of activity confined to the earthly phase; we have his assurance in Luke 12:8: "Every one who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God."128
All this was appreciated in the early church. Stephen, condemned by the Sanhedrin, makes his confident appeal to the heavenly court, where he sees as his advocate "the Son of man standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 7:56).129 To the same effect Paul challenges anyone to bring a charge against God's elect, since "it is Christ Jesus who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us" (Rom. 8:34).130 And John, while he writes to his "little children" to guard against their sinning, reminds them that nevertheless, "if any one sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and it is he who atones for our sins . . ." (1 John 2:1f.). Here the reference to atonement implies a priestly element in the advocacy and intercession of the risen Our author then was not a complete innovator in presenting Christ as his people's high priest, but he elaborates the priesthood of Christ in quite a distinctive manner, and does so in order to establish that in Christ and the gospel God has spoken his final and perfect word to mankind.
Arguments of various kinds are adduced to show that the priesthood of Christ is not only superior to that of the Aaronic succession, but belongs to an entirely different order from theirs. It belongs to the new covenant foretold by Jeremiah-a new covenant marked by better promises and a better hope than the old covenant of Sinai, under which the Aaronic priests ministered. In particular, the priesthood of Christ is associated with a better sacrifice than any that went before, and is discharged in a better sanctuary than that prescribed in the Levitical cultus.
This efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ on behalf of others could be readily inferred neither from Ps. 110 nor from Ps. 40. It was, of course, already a matter of vital experience for a whole generation of believers when our author wrote; they knew (however they expressed it) that through the Christ who died and rose again they had been inwardly purified from the defilement of sin and emancipated from its domination. Our author expresses this in terms of sacrifice and priesthood, but it was no new thing which he thus expressed.
He who offers up his life to God in unreserved consecration is both priest and sacrifice at once. This is true of the speaker in Ps. 40:6-8; it is even more explicitly true of the Isaianic Servant of the Lord, whose willing selfoffering "to bear the sins of many" is interpreted of the work of Christ in Heb. 9:28. The Servant is introduced as a priest, destined to "sprinkle many nations" (Isa. 52:15), and he is equally a sacrifice, yielding himself up as "an offering for sin" (Isa. 53:10). His portrayal was fulfilled in history when "the Son of man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). In this spirit Jesus accepted death, and the redemptive and cleansing efficacy of his death in the lives of his followers has been a matter of plain experience for over nineteen centuries. Our author is not airily theorizing when he speaks of priesthood and sacrifice, but expressing basic realities. Such a sacrifice as Christ's needs no repetition; its "oncefor-all" character involves the finality of the gospel.
It is because of his concentration on the priestly aspect of Christ's work that our author has so much to say of his death and exaltation, but so little of his resurrection.133 The two principal moments in the great sin offering of Old Testament times were the shedding of the victim's blood in the court of the sanctuary and the presentation of its blood inside the sanctuary. In the antitype these two moments were seen to correspond to the death of Christ on the cross and his appearance at the right hand of God. In this pattern the resurrection, as generally proclaimed in the apostolic preaching, finds no separate place.
The presence of God, the heavenly sanctuary, where Christ now ministers as his people's high priest, is naturally superior to any holy place on earth, and the priesthood which is exercised in the former is naturally superior to any priesthood which is exercised in one of the latter sanctuaries. The earthly sanctuary, where the Aaronic priests ministered, is but a material copy of "the true tent, pitched by the Lord, not by any human hand" (8:2). Here it is natural to recognize the influence of Platonic idealism in our author's thought and language, mediated through Philo and Alexandrian culture in general; and such influence need not be ruled out.134 For Plato and his followers material and sensible objects are not the ultimate realities; they are but copies of archetypes or "ideas" laid up in heaven, which can be discerned only by the intellect.135 But the idea of the earthly sanctuary as a copy of the heavenly dwelling-place of God goes back far beyond Plato's day. To Israel's neighbors in Old Testament times this idea was commonplace; and our author finds Old Testament authority for his view of the earthly sanctuary as a copy of the heavenly in the direction given to Moses to construct the tabernacle in all respects according to the model shown him by God on Mount Sinai.136 This view of the relation of the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries finds frequent expression in apocalyptic literature, not least in the New Testament book of Revelation.
In the heavenly and eternal sanctuary where Christ ministers, his people inevitably enjoy more direct and permanent access to God through him than would be possible in any earthly and material shrine. But just how is this heavenly and eternal sanctuary envisaged? We must not think that because our author speaks of Jesus as having "passed through the heavens" and having "sat down at the right hand of the throne of God" he thought of the heavenly sanctuary as being, in reverse, a glorified replica of the sanctuary on earth, established in perpetuity on some higher plane. He uses pictorial language indeed, but uses it to denote realities of the spiritual order, where men and women, inwardly purified from a polluting conscience, draw near to God to worship him in spirit and in truth. This "perfection" is the inauguration of the eschatology which is soon to be The sanctuary in which they worship God through Christ is the fellowship of the new covenant; it consists in the communion of saints. The house of God, over which Christ, as his Son, is Lord, comprises his people, "if we maintain our confidence and the hope in which we boast" (3:6). Our author in his own terms communicates the truth expressed by Paul when he speaks of Jewish and Gentile believers, made one in Christ, as having "access in one Spirit unto the Father ... built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit" (Eph. 2:18, 22), or by Peter when he describes how those who have come to Christ "are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 2:5). It is the same truth which John sees consummated in the Apocalypse, when he describes the appearance of the glorified church on earth and hears a voice proclaiming that now the blessings of the new covenant are worldwide in their scope: "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his peoples, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God" (Rev. 21:3).
The Epistle to the Hebrews is no intruder into the New Testament, but makes its proper and indispensable contribution to the canonical literature of the Christian church.
VIII. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. SURVEYS
Bruce, F. F. "'To the Hebrews': A Document of Roman Christianity?" ANRW 11.25.4 (Berlin/New York, 1987), pp. 3496-3521.
Buchanan, G. W. "The Present State of Scholarship on Hebrews," in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Jewish Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, ed. J. Neusner, I (Leiden, 1975), pp. 299-330.
Feld, H. Der Hebraerbrief, Ertrage der Forschung 228 (Darmstadt, 1985).
Grasser, E. "Der Hebraerbrief,1938-1963," TRu NF 30 (1964), pp. 138-236.
Spicq, C. L'Epitre aux Hebreux, EB (Paris, 31952), I, pp. 379-411 (c. 200- 1950); "Paul, 5 (Epitres attribuees a)," DBSup, VII (Paris, 1966), pp. 272-79 (1900-1961); L'Epitre auxHebreux, Sources Bibliques (Paris, 1977), pp. 44-54 (1961-77).
Vanhoye, A. "Hebraerbrief," TRE, XIV (Berlin/New York, 1985), pp. 494- 505.
B. EDITIONS, COMMENTARIES, AND EXPOSITORY STUDIES*
*Bibliographical entries marked with an asterisk are based on the Greek text.
*Alford, H. The Greek Testament, Vol. IV, Part I (Cambridge, 1870), pp. 1- 87 (Prolegomena), 1-273 (Text and Commentary).
Anderson, R. The Hebrews Epistle (London, 1911).
Andrews, H. T. "Hebrews," in The Abingdon Bible Commentary (New York, 1929), pp. 1295-1326.
Andriessen, P., and Lenglet, A. De Brief aan de Hebreeen, Het Nieuwe Testament (Roermond, 1971).
*Attridge, H. W. The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, 1989).
Barclay, W. The Letter to the Hebrews. The Daily Study Bible (Edinburgh, 31975).
*Bengel, J. A. Gnomon Novi Testamenti (Tubingen, 1734; repr. London, 1862); E.T. by A. R. Fausset, Gnomon of the New Testament, IV (Edinburgh, 21877), pp. 333-502.
*Blass, F. (Barnabas) Brief an die Hebrder: Text mitAngabe der Rhythmen (Halle, 1903).
*Bleek, F. Der Brief an die Hebraer, I-III (Berlin, 1828, 1836, 1840).
Bonsirven, J. Epftre aux Hebreux. Verbum Salutis (Paris, 1943).
Bowman, J. W. Hebrews, James, I& II Peter. Layman's Bible Commentary (London, 1962).
*Braun, H. An die Hebrder, HNT 14 (Tubingen, 1984).
Brown, J. An Exposition of Hebrews (Edinburgh, 1862; repr. London, 1961).
Brown, R. Christ Above All: The Message of Hebrews (Leicester, 1982).
Bruce, A. B. The Epistle to the Hebrews: The First Apology for Christianity (Edinburgh, 1899).
Buchanan, G. W. To the Hebrews, AB (Garden City, NY, 1972).
Calvin J. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, first edition, Latin (Geneva, 1549); E.T. by W. B. Johnston in The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St. Peter (Edinburgh, 1963), pp. ix-xiv, 1-216.
Darby, J. N. BriefAnalysis of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Collected Writings (London, 1867-83), XV, pp. 308-66.
Darby, J. N. Notes from Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Collected Writings, XXVII, pp. 497-615.
Darby, J. N. Notes on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Collected Writings, XXVIII, pp. 1-51.
Davidson, A. B. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Handbooks for Bible Classes (Edinburgh, 1882).
Davies, J. H. A Letter to Hebrews, CBC (Cambridge, 1967).
*Delitzsch, F. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, E.T., 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1872).
*Dods, M. "The Epistle to the Hebrews," EGT, IV (London, 1910), pp. 219- 381.
Edwards, T. C. The Epistle to the Hebrews, ExpB (London, 1888).
Gayford, S. C. "The Epistle to the Hebrews," inA New Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. C. Gore (London, 1928), NT, pp. 596-627.
Grant, F. C. The Epistle to the Hebrews, Harper's Annotated Bible Series (New York, 1956).
*Grosheide, F. W. De Brief aan de Hebreeen, in De Brief aan de Hebreeen en de Brief van Jakobus. Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament (Kampen, 1955), pp. 5-322.
Guthrie, D. The Letter to the Hebrews, TNTC (Leicester, 1983).
Haering, T. Der Brief an die Hebrder (Stuttgart, 1925).
Hagner, D. A. Hebrews, GNC (San Francisco, 1983).
Haldane, J. A. Notes on Exposition of Hebrews (London, 1860).
Hering, J. The Epistle to the Hebrews, E.T. (London, 1970).
Hewitt, T. The Epistle to the Hebrews, TNTC (London, 1960).
Hofmann, J. C. K. von. Der Brief an die Hebri er (Nordlingen, 1873).
Holmes, W. H. G. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Indian Church Commentaries (London, 1919).
Hugede, N. Le sacerdoce du Fils. Commentaire de l'Epitre aux Hebreux (Paris, 1983).
Hughes, P. E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, 1977).
*Isaacs, W. H. The Epistle to the Hebrews (Oxford, 1933).
Javet, J. S. Dieu nous parla. Commentaire sur l'Epitre aux Hebreux (Neuchatel/Paris, 1945).
Jewett, R. Letter to the Pilgrims. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (New York, 1981).
Kelly, W. The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1905).
Kistemaker, S. J. Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, NTC (Grand Rapids/Welwyn,1984).
Kuss, O. Der Brief an die Hebraer, RNT (Regensburg, 1953, 21966).
Lang, G. H. The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1951).
Laubach, F. Der Brief an die Hebrker, Wuppertaler Studienbibel (Wuppertal, 1967, 71977).
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James (Columbus, Ohio, 1937, 31960).
Lincoln, W. Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1873).
Lindsay, W. Lectures on Hebrews, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1867).
Liinemann, G. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Hebrews, E.T. (Edinburgh, 1883).
Luther, M. Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews, delivered in 1517-18 (WA, LVII, 1939, Part 3, pp. 1-238), E.T. by J. Atkinson in Luther: Early Theological Works, Library of Christian Classics, XVI (London, 1962), pp. 19-250.
McCaul, J. B. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Paraphrastic Commentary, with Illustrations from Philo, the Targums, the Mishna and Gemara, etc. (London, 1871).
*Michel, O. Der Brief an die Hebraer, MK (Gottingen, 1949, 71975).
*Moffatt, J. The Epistle to the Hebrews, ICC (Edinburgh, 1924).
Montefiore, H. W. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, HNTC (New York/London, 1964).
Morgan, G. C. God's Last Word to Man (London, 1936).
Murray, A. The Holiest of All: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1895; repr. 1924).
Nairne, A. The Epistle of Priesthood (Edinburgh, 1913).
Nairne, A. The Alexandrine Gospel (London, 1917).
*Nairne, A. The Epistle to the Hebrews, CGT (Cambridge, 1917).
Nairne, A. The Epistle to the Hebrews, CBSC (Cambridge, 1921).
Narborough, F. D. V. The Epistle to the Hebrews, Clarendon Bible (Oxford, 1930).
Neil, W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Torch Commentaries (London, 1955).
*Olshausen, H., and Ebrard, J. H. A. Biblical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, E.T. (Edinburgh, 1853).
Owen, J. Exposition of Hebrews, 4 vols. (London, 1668-74), ed. W. H. Goold (Edinburgh, 1855; repr. Evansville, IN, 1960).
Peake, A. S. The Epistle to the Hebrews, CentB (Edinburgh, 1914).
Pink, A. W. An Exposition of Hebrews (Grand Rapids, 1954).
Purdy, A. C. "The Epistle to the Hebrews," in 1B, XI (New York, 1955), pp. 575-763.
*Rendall, F. The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1883).
Reuss, E. L'Epitre aux Hebreux (Paris, 1878).
*Riggenbach, E. Der Brief an die Hebraer, ZK (Leipzig, 1913, 2,31922; repr. Wuppertal, 1987).
Robinson, T. H. The Epistle to the Hebrews, MNTC (London, 1933).
Saphir, A. Expository Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 vols. (London, 1874-75).
Schlatter, A. "Der Brief an die Hebraer," in Erlauterungen zum Neuen Testament, IX (Stuttgart, 51950), pp. 220-436.
Schneider, J. The Letter to the Hebrews, E.T. (Grand Rapids, 1957).
Scott, E. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Doctrine and Significance (Edinburgh, 1922).
Snell, A. New and Living Way (London, 1959).
*Soden, H. von. "Der Brief an die Hebraer," in HCNT, ed. H. J. Holtzmann, III (Freiburg, 1899), pp. 1-114.
* Spicq, C. L'EpItre aux Hebreux, EB, 2 vols. (Paris,
Spicq, C. L'Epitre aux Hebreux, Sources Bibliques (Paris, 1977).
Strack, H. L., and Billerbeck, P. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch, III (Munich, 1926), pp. 671-750.
Strathmann, H. Der Brief an die Hebraer. NTD 9 (Gottingen, 1935, 81963).
Strobel, A. Der Brief an die Hebraer, NTD 9 (Gottingen, 1975).
Stuart, M. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1937).
Thomas, W. H. G. Let Us Go On (London, 1923).
Vanhoye, A. L'Epitre aux Hebreux: Texte grec structure (Fano, 1966).
Vanhoye, A. Situation du Christ: Epitre aux Hebreux 1 et 2, LD 58 (Paris, 1969).
* Vaughan, C. J. The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1890).
Vine, W. E. The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1952).
*Weiss, B. Der Brief an die Hebraer, MK (Gottingen, 1897).
*Westcott, B. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 21892).
*Wettstein, J. J. He Kaine Diatheke, II (Amsterdam, 1752), pp. 383-446.
Wickham, E. C. The Epistle to the Hebrews, WC (London, 21922).
Wilson, G. B. Hebrews: A Digest of Reformed Comment (London, 1970).
Wilson, R. McL. Hebrews, NCBC (Grand Rapids/Basingstoke, 1987).
*Windisch, H. DerHebraerbrief, HNT (Tubingen, 1931).
Wuest, K. S. Hebrews in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader (Grand Rapids, 1947).
C. OTHER WORKS
Anderson, C. P. "The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Letter Collection," HTR 59 (1966), pp. 429-38.
Anderson, C. P. "Hebrews among the Letters of Paul," SR 5 (1975), pp. 25866.
Appel, H. Der Hebraerbrief: Ein Schreiben des Apollos an Judenchristen der korinthischen Gemeinde (Leipzig, 1918).
Barclay, W. Epistle to the Hebrews, Bible Guides 20 (London/New York, 1965).
Barrett, C. K. "The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews," in The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology (C. H. Dodd FS), ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 383-93.
Beare, F. W. "The Text of the Epistle to the Hebrews in p46,"JBL 63 (1944), pp. 379-96.
Bornhauser, K. Empfanger and Verfasser des Briefes an die Hebraer (Gutersloh, 1932).
Braun, H. Qumran and das Neue Testament (Tubingen, 1966), I, pp. 241-78 ("Hebraer"), II, pp. 181-84 ("Fragen des Hebraerbriefes").
Buchsel, F. Die Christologie des Hebraerbriefs (Gutersloh, 1923).
Burch, V. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Sources and Message (London, 1936).
Cabantous, J. Philon et l'Epitre aux Hebreux (Montauban, 1895).
Carlston, C. "The Vocabulary of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews," in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology (G. E. Ladd FS), ed. R. A. Guelich (Grand Rapids, 1978), pp. 133-60.
Carpzov, J. B. Sacrae exercitationes in S. Pauli epistolam ad Hebraeos ex PhiloneAlexandrino (Amsterdam, 1750).
Cody, A. Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews (St. Meinrad, 1960).
Coppens, J. Les affinites qumrdniennes de l'Epitre aux Hebreux (Bruges, Paris, and Louvain, 1962).
Dale, R. W. The Jewish Temple and the Christian Church (London, 21870).
Demarest, B. A. A History of Interpretation of Hebrews 7, -10from the Reformation to the Present, BGBE 19 (Tubingen, 1976).
Dey, L. K. K. The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews, SBLDS 25 (Missoula, MT, 1975).
Dickie, J. "The Literary Riddle of the Epistle to the Hebrews," Exp. VIIl.v (1913), pp. 371-78.
Du Bose, W. P. High Priesthood and Sacrifice (New York, 1908).
Du Plessis, P. J. TEAEIO2' : The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament (Kampen, 1959), pp. 206-33.
Feld, H. Martin Luthers and Wendelin Steinbachs Vorlesungen uber den Hebraerbrief (Wiesbaden, 1971).
Feld, H. "Der Hebraerbrief: Literarische Form, religionsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund, theologische Fragen," ANRW 11.25.4 (Berlin/New York, 1987), pp. 3522-3601.
Gayford, S. C. Sacrifice and Priesthood (London, 1924).
Giles, P. Jesus, the High Priest (Bognor Regis, 1984).
Goppelt, L. Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New, E.T. (Grand Rapids, 1982), pp. 161-78.
Grasser, E. Der Glaube im Hebraerbrief (Marburg, 1963).
Greer, R. A. The Captain of our Salvation: A Study in the Patristic Exegesis of Hebrews, BGBE 15 (Tubingen, 1974).
Harnack, A. "Probabilia uber die Adresse and den Verfasser des Hebraerbriefs," ZNW 1 (1900), pp. 16-41.
Harris, J. R. Testimonies, II (Cambridge, 1920), pp. 43-57.
Hatch, W. H. P. "The Position of Hebrews in the Canon of the New Testament," HTR 29 (1936), pp. 133-51.
Hicks, F. C. N. The Fullness of Sacrifice (London, 1930).
Hofius, 0. Katapausis: Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebraerbrief, WUNT 11 (Tubingen, 1970).
Hofius, O. Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes, WUNT 14 (Tubingen, 1972).
Hoppin, R. Priscilla, Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and Other Essays (New York, 1969).
Hughes, G. Hebrews and Hermeneutics, SNTSM 36 (Cambridge, 1979).
Johnsson, W. G. "The Cultus of Hebrews in Twentieth-Century Scholarship," ExT 89 (1977-78), pp. 104-08.
Kahler, M. Der Hebraerbrief in genauer Wiedergabe seines Gedankenganges (Halle, 1880, 21889).
Kasemann, E. The Wandering People of God (1938, 21957), E.T. (Minneapolis, 1984).
Kennedy, H. A. A. The Theology of the Epistles (London, 1919), pp. 182- 221.
Kistemaker, S. The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Amsterdam, 1961).
Klappert, B. Die Eschatologie des Hebraerbriefes, TEH 156 (Munich, 1969).
Kugel, J. Der Sohn and die Sohne: Eine exegetische Studie zu Hebr. 2, 5-18 (Gutersloh, 1904).
Kosmala, H. Hebraer-Essener-Christen (Leiden, 1959).
Laub, F. Bekenntnis and Auslegung: Die paranetische Funktion der Christologie im Hebraerbrief, BU 15 (Regensburg, 1980).
Lidgett, J. S. Sonship and Salvation: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1921).
Loane, M. L. Key-Texts in the Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1961).
Lo Bue, F. "The Historical Background of the Epistle to the Hebrews," JBL 85 (1956), pp. 52-57.
Longenecker, R. N. "The Melchizedek Argument of Hebrews: A Study in the Development and Circumstantial Expression of New Testament Thought," in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology (Ladd FS), ed. R. A. Guelich (Grand Rapids, 1978), pp. 161-85.
Manson, T. W. "The Problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews" (1949), reprinted in Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Manchester, 1962), pp. 242-58.
Manson, W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration (London, 1951).
Maurice, F. D. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Warburton Lectures (London, 1846).
Menegoz, E. La Theologie de l'Epitre aux Hebreux (Paris, 1894).
Milligan, G. The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh, 1899).
Milligan, G. "The Roman Destination of the Epistle to the Hebrews," Exp. VI.iv (1901), pp. 437-48.
Milligan, W. The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord (London, 21894).
Nash, R. H. "The Notion of Mediator in Alexandrian Judaism and the Epistle to the Hebrews," WTJ 40 (1977-78), pp. 89-115.
Nauck, W. "Zum Aufbau des Hebraerbriefes," inJudentum, Urchristentum, Kirche (FS fur J. Jeremias), BZNW 26 (1960), pp. 199-206.
Peake, A. S. The Heroes and Martyrs of Faith. Studies in the Eleventh Chapter of Hebrews (London, 1910).
Peterson, D. Hebrews and Perfection, SNTSM 47 (Cambridge, 1982).
Ploeg, J. van der. "L'exegese de 1'Ancien Testament dans l'Epitre aux Hebreux," RB 54 (1947), pp. 187-228.
Purdy, A. C. "The Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of Recent Studies in Judaism," in Amicitiae Corolla (J. R. Harris FS), ed. H. G. Wood (London, 1933), pp. 253-64.
Quell, G., and Behm, J. Article SLa9~xi in TDNT, II, pp. 106-34.
Ramsay, W. M. "The Date and Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews," in Luke the Physician and Other Studies in the History of Religion (London, 1908), pp. 299-328.
Riehm, E. Der L ehrbegriff des Hebraerbriefs (Basel, 1867).
Riggenbach, E. Die altesten lateinischen Kommentare zum Hebraerbrief Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, ed. T. Zahn, VIII.1 (Leipzig, 1907).
Rissi, M. Die Theologie des Hebraerbriefs: Ihre Verankerung in der Situation des Verfassers and seiner Leser, WUNT 41 (Tubingen, 1987).
Sauer, E. In the Arena of Faith (Exposition of Hebrews 12), E.T. (London, 1955).
Schroger, F. Der Verfasser des Hebraerbriefes als Schriftausleger, BU 4 (Regensburg, 1968).
Scott, E. F. "The Epistle to the Hebrews and Roman Christianity," HTR 13 (1920), pp. 205-19.
Smith, J. A Priest For Ever: A Study of Typology and Eschatology in Hebrews (London/Sydney, 1969).
Sowers, S. G. The Hermeneutics of Philo and Hebrews (Zurich, 1965).
Spicq, C. "L'epitre aux Hebreux: Apollos, Jean-Baptiste, les Hellenistes et Qumran," RQ 1 (1958-59), pp. 365-90.
Spicq, C. "L'epitre aux Hebreux et Philon," ANRW 11.25.4 (Berlin/New York, 1987), pp. 3602-18.
Synge, F. C. Hebrews and the Scriptures (London, 1959).
Tasker, R. V. G. The Gospel in the Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1950).
Theissen, G. Untersuchungen zum Hebraerbrief, SNT 2 (Gutersloh, 1969).
Thompson, J. W. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, CBQM 13 (Washington, D.C., 1982).
Ungeheuer, J. Der Grosse Priester uber dem Hause Gottes: Die Christologie des Hebraerbriefes (Wurzburg, 1939).
Vaganay, L. "Le plan de l'Epitre aux Hebreux," in Memorial Lagrange (Paris, 1940), pp. 269-77.
Vanhoye, A. La structure litteraire de 1'Epitre aux Hebreux, SN 1 (Paris/Bruges, 1963, 21976).
Vanhoye, A. "Discussions sur la structure de l'Epitre aux Hebreux," Biblica 55 (1974), pp. 349-80.
Vanhoye, A. Old Testament Priests and the New Priest according to the New Testament, E.T. (Leominster, 1986).
Vanhoye, A. "L'oblation sacerdotale du Christ dans l'epitre aux Hebreux," Didaskalia 14 (1984), pp. 11-30.
Vos, G. "The Priesthood of Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews," PTR 5 (1907), pp. 423-47, 579-604.
Vos, G. "Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke," PTR 13 (1915), pp. 587632, 14 (1916), pp. 1-61.
Vos, G. The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, 1956).
Weiss, B. Der Hebraerbrief in zeitgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung = TU 35, Heft 3 (Leipzig, 1910).
Williams, R. R. Reading through Hebrews (London, 1960).
Williamson, R. "Hebrews and Doctrine," ExT 81 (1969-70), pp. 371-76.
Williamson, R. Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews, ALGHJ 4 (Leiden, 1970).
Williamson, R. "The Eucharist and the Epistle to the Hebrews," NTS 21 (1974-75), pp. 300-312.
Williamson, R. "The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background," ExT 87 (1975-76), pp. 232-37.
Wrede, W. Das literarische Ratsel des Hebraerbriefs (Gottingen, 1906).
Yadin, Y. "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews," Scripta Hierosolymitana 4 (1958), pp. 36-55.
Young, N. H. "The Gospel according to Hebrews 9," NTS 27 (1980-81), pp. 198-210.
Zuntz, G. The Text of the Epistles. British Academy Schweich Lectures, 1946 (London, 1953).
Other relevant literature, especially articles in periodicals, will be found cited in the notes.