Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/220

 HEBREWS

182

HEBREWS

ever His priestly office of mediator as our Advocate with the Father (vii, 24 sq.).

This doctrine of the priestly office of Christ forms the chief subject-matter of the Christological argument and the highest proof of the pre-eminence of the New Covenant over the Old. The person of the High-priest after the order of Melchisedech, His sacrifice, and its effects are opposed, in an exhaustive comparison, to the Old Testament institutions. The Epistle lays special emphasis on the spiritual power and effective- ness of Christ's sacrifice, which have brought to Israel, as to all mankind, atonement and salvation that are complete and sufficient for all time, and which have given to us a share in the eternal inheritance of the Messianic promises (i, .3; ix, 9-1.5, etc.). In the ad- monitory conclusions from these doctrines at the end we find a clear reference to the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Christian altar, of which those are not permitted to partake who still wish to serve the Tabernacle and to follow the Mosaic Law (xiii, 9 sq.).

In the Christological expositions of the letter other doctrines are treated more or less fully. Special em- phasis is laid on the setting aside of the Old Covenant, its incompleteness and weakness, its typical and preparatory relation to the time of the Messianic salva- tion that is realized in the New Covenant (vii, IS .sq.; viii, 15; x, 1, etc.). In the same manner the letter refers at times to the four last things, the resurrection, the judgment, eternal punishment, and heavenly bliss (vi, 2, 7 sq.; Lx, 27, etc.). If we compare the doc- trinal content of this letter with that of the other epistles of St. Paul, a difference in the manner of treatment, it is true, is noticeable in some respects. At the same time, there appears a marked agreement in the views, even in regard to characteristic points of Pauline doctrine (cf. J. Belser, " Einleitung", 2nd ed., 571-7.3). The explanation of the differences hes in the special character of the letter and in the circum- stances of its composition.

III. Language and Stile. — Even in the first cen- turies commentators noticed the striking piu'ity of language and elegance of Greek style that character- ized the Epistle to the Hebrews (Clement of Alexan- dria in Eusebius, " Hist. EccL", VI, xiv, n. 2-4 ; Origen, ibid., VI, XXV, n. 11-14). This observation is con- firmed by later authorities. In fact the author of the Epistle shows great familiarity with the rules of the Greek literary language of his age. Of all the New- Testament authors he has the best stjde. His writing may even be included among those examples of arti.s- tic Greek prose whose rhythm recalls the parallelism of Hebrew poetry (cf. Fr. Blass, " [Barnabas] Brief an die Hebraer". Text with indications of the rhythm, Halle, 1903). As regards language, the letter is a treasure-house of expressions characteristic of the individuality of the writer. As many as 16S terms have been counted which appear in no other part of the New Testament, among them ten words found neither in Biblical nor classical Greek, and forty words also which are not found in the Septuagint. One noticeable peculiarity is the preference of the author for compound words (cf. E. Jacquier, " Histoire des hvres du N. T.", I, Paris, 1903, 457-71; Idem in Vig., "Diet, de la Bible", III, 530-38). A comparison of the letter as regards language and style with the other writings of St. Paul confirms in general the opinion of Origen that every competent judge must recognize a great difference between them (in Eusebius, "Hist. EccL", VI, XXV, n. 11).

IV. Distinctive Characteristics. — Among other peculiarities we should mention: (1) The absence of the customary form of the Pauline letters. The usual opening with the Apostolic greeting and blessing is entirely lacking; nor is there any clear e\adence of the epistolary character of the writing untO the brief con- clusion is reached (xiii, 18-25). On this account some have preferred to regard the letter rather as a homily,

but this is plainly incorrect. According to the state ment of the author it is an admonition and exhorta- tion (X670S T^s KapaK\-^<Teus, xiii, 22), which, above all, presupposes a well-defined situation of an actually existing individual Church.

(2) The method of citing from the Old Testament. The author in his instruction, demonstration, and exhortation draws largely from the copious treasures of the Old Testament. All the citations follow the text of the Septuagint even where this varies from the Masoretic te.xt, unless the citation is freely rendered according to the sense and without verbal exactness (examples, i, 6; xii, 20; xiii, 5). In the other Pauline letters, it is true, quotations from the Old Testam.ent generally follow the Greek translation even when the text varies, but the .\postle at times corrects the Septuagint by the Hebrew, and at other times, when the two do not agree, keeps closer to the Hebrew.

In regard to the formula with which the citations are introduced, it is worthy of note that the expres- sion "It is written", so commonly used in the New Testament, occurs only once in the Epistle to the Hebrews (x, 7). In tliis Epistle the words of Scrip- ture are generally given as the utterance of God, at times also of Christ or the Holy Spirit.

V. RE.vDEns TO Whom it w.\s Addre.ssed. — Ac- cording to the superscription, the letter is addressed to "Hebrews". The contents of the letter define more exactly this general designation. Not all Israelites are meant, but only those who have accepted the faith in Christ.

Furthermore, the letter could hardly have been ad- dressed to all Jewish Christians in general. It presup- poses a particular community, with which both the writer of the letter and his companion Timothy have had close relations (xiii, 18-24), which has preserved its faith in .severe persecutions, and has distinguished itself by works of charity (x, 32-35), which is situated in a definite locality, whither the author hopes soon to come (xiii, 19, 23).

The place itself may also be inferred from the con- tent with sufficient probability. For although many modern commentators incline either to Italy (on ac- count of xiii, 24), or to Alexandria (on account of the reference to a letter of Paul to the Alexandrians in the Muratorian Canon and for other reasons), or leave the question undecided, yet the entire letter is best suited to the members of the Jewish Christian Church of Jeru- salem. What is decisive above all for this question is the fact that the author presupposes in the readers not only an exact knowledge of the Levitical worship and all its peculiar customs, Init, furthermore, regards the present observance of this worship as the special danger to the Christian faith of those addressed. His words (cf. particularly x, 1 sq.) may, if necessary, per- haps permit of another interpretation, but they indi- cate Jerusalem with the highest probability as the Church for which the letter is intended. There alone the Levitical worship was known to all by the daily offering of sacrifices and the great celebration.s of the Day of Atonement and of other feast-daj's. There alone this worship was continuously maintained ac- cording to the ordinances of the Law until the destruc- tion of the city in the year 70.

VI. Author. — Even in the earliest centuries the question as to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was much discussed and was variously answered. The most important points to be considered in answering the inquiry are the following:

(1) External Evidence. — (a) In the East the writing was unanimouslv regarded as a letter of St. Paul. Eusebius gives the earliest testimonies of the Church of Alexandria in reporting the words of a " blessed presbyter" (Pantsenus?), as well as those of Clement and Origen (Hist. Eccl., VT, xiv. n. 2-4: xxv, n. 11- 14). Clement explains the contrast in language and