to the destruction of the Temple. The impression one receives from its perusal is that the sacrifices and other services of the Temple were still being performed. If particular passages are ex- amined, this impression is deepened. It is quite true that the use of the present tense (as in Heb. ix. 6, vill. 4, etc.) does not always imply an actual present. The use of this tense by Clement (Ef. ο. 41) in describing ordinances which in his day were certainly obso- lete puts this beyond question. But of course the use of the pre- sent generally implies the existence of the object spoken of at the time of the speaker; and it is not easy to suppose that if the Temple and its worship had already been abolished, this writer could use such language as we find in c. x. 1, 2; ‘‘ they can never with the same sacrifices year by year which they offer continually make perfect them that draw nigh. Else would they not have ceased to be offered?’’ And as Ménégoz! says: ‘ C’est précisément lexistence du culte levitique qui offrait des dangers pour la fidelité des chretiens. Aprés la destruction du Temple ce danger avait dis- paru, du moins en majeure partie.’’ Besides, it is impossible to sup- pose that a writer wishing to demonstrate the evanescent nature of the Levitical dispensation, and writing after the Temple services had been discontinued, should not have pointed to that event as strengthening his argument. It would appear, then, that the Epistle must have been written while the Temple was yet standing, that is, prior to the year Α.Ρ. 70.
Accordingly Salmon dates the Epistle in 63; Ménégoz places it in 64-67. The year 66 or thereabouts is adopted by Riehm, Liine- mann, Hilgenfeld, Weiss, Beyschlag, Schtirer, Godet, Westcott. Bleek prefers the year 68 or 69. Harnack, Pfleiderer, von Soden, Holtzmann and McGiffert bring it down to some date between Α.Ρ. 81 and 96.
Commentaries. ull lists of commentaries on the Epistle are easily accessible in Bible Dictionaries or in Delitzsch’s Comment- ary. A selection is given by von Soden in the Hand-commentar. Here it must suffice to name the most outstanding. Among the patristic commentators Chrysostom is unquestionably the most valu- able, always sensible and well expressed. Of medizval writers Primasius, Atto Vercellensis and Herveius may be consulted with advantage.? Calvin, Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Bengel will inevitably be used in the study of this Epistle, as of any part of the New
1La Theol, de l’ep. etc., p. 40. ?On these and others see Riggenbach’s Die dltesten lateinischen Komm: Zum Hebrderbrief in Zahn’s Forschungen.