Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Hebrews

  • On Interpreting Hebrews 6:1-8

    David Allen has an excellent series of posts on this passage (HT: David Alan Black), which I think is the key to the entire book. I am, of course, especially impressed with the fact that much of what he says is compatible with the way I believe the passage should be interpreted!

    Agree or disagree, I think one must admit this is exceptionally well written and reasoned.

    I will doubtless acquire a copy of his commentary on Hebrews in the New American Commentary Series [Hebrews: 35 (New American Commentary)].

     

  • Hebrews 13:12 and the Historical Jesus

    James McGrath makes a connection here that I had never thought of, comparing a mythicist hypothesis that this refers to suffering outside the gate of heaven (for which we have have what evidence?) as opposed to a common belief at the time that Jesus suffered outside the gate of Jerusalem, for which we do have literary evidence. William of Ockham rules!

     

  • Piacular View of the Atonement

    I ran headlong into my lack of explicit theological training today while studying Hebrews. (Yes, I’m still working on my revised study guide.) Now I’m certain that I’ve run into the word “piacular” before. The reason I can be so certain is that this is the second time I’m reading James Moffatt’s commentary on Hebrews in the ICC.

    In discussing the view of sacrifice in Hebrews he states that the author takes the “piacular view.” He then quotes John Calvin. My Latin isn’t up to such a translation, so I went to a translation of the Institutes that I possess (ii. 15. 6) to get it in English:

    … end and use to be, that as a Mediator, free from all taint, he may by his own holiness procure the favour of God for us. But because a deserved curse obstructs the entrance, and God in his character of Judge is hostile to us, expiation must necessarily intervene, that as a priest employed to appease the wrath of God, he may reinstate us in his favour. Wherefore, in order that Christ might fulfil this office, it behoved him to appear with a sacrifice. For even under the law of the priesthood it was forbidden to enter the sanctuary without blood, to teach the worshipper that however the priest might interpose to deprecate, God could not be propitiated without the expiation of sin. On this subject the Apostle discourses at length in the Epistle to the Hebrews, from the seventh almost to the end of the tenth chapter.

    I have included one elision Moffatt made in the quote, between the first “intervene” and the final sentence beginning with “On.” I don’t think that makes a difference. In fact, the final bit before the elision, “piaculum intervenire necesse est” is part of my problem. Now of course the Latin definition need not match the English, but they seem to match in the dictionaries available to me.

    After another quote, which he says parallels Calvin, Moffatt continues:

    The interpretation of Calvin confuses Paul’s doctrine of expiation with the piacular view of our author.

    I’ve read the section through a couple of times and I’m not sure I’m getting this. The difference Moffatt seems to be highlighting is that God, according to Calvin, is hostile to the universe through the curse, whereas the author of Hebrews sees no such thing. He is rather concerned with God’s wrath against apostates. On the next page (xxxvi) he adds, “What engrosses the writer is the need not so much of a medium between God and the material universe, as of a medium between his holiness and human sin (see on 12:23).”

    I see a sense of the difference Moffatt is trying to make here, though I don’t completely understand it. At the same time, I’m not sure I see that the author of Hebrews has made the distinction Moffatt says he has.

    Any thoughts?

     

  • The Numerous Authorship Proposals for Hebrews

    I was reading this morning from the introduction to Moffatt’s commentary on Hebrews in the International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, Ltd, 1979), and found an interesting quote on the variety of proposals for the authorship of the book.

    Few characters mentioned in the NT have escaped the attention of those who have desired in later days to identify the author of Pros Hebraious. Apollos, Peter, Philip, Silvanus, and even Prisca have been suggested, besides Aristion, the alleged author of Mk 169-20. I have summarized these views elsewhere (Introd. to Lit. of NT., pp. 438-442), and it is superfluous here to discuss hypotheses which are in the main due to an irrepressible desire to construct NT romances. Perhaps our modern pride resents being baffled by an ancient document, but it is better to admit that we are not yet wiser on this matter than Origen was, seventeen centuries ago. … (p. xx, transliteration mine)

    I would note in passing a different view in a book I recently published, The Authorship of Hebrews: The Case for Paul (Gonzalez, FL: Energion, 2013), p. 25-26, as well as in the appendix where Dave Black provides his own translation of Origen’s comments. Moffatt quotes these in full in Greek, providing sufficient context to judge.

    My point here is not to argue for a particular author. In fact, I’ve been agnostic on the subject of authorship since the first time I studied it. While I feel that Dave Black has provided the strongest argument for Pauline authorship possible within limited space, I have not yet been moved from “possible” to “reasonably certain.”

    But other hypotheses strike me much as they apparently struck Moffatt. There is simply too little information available to make such hypotheses seem more certain than “not absolutely excluded.” The study of internal evidence requires some literature to use in comparison, and other than Luke, we don’t have that much (if any) from any of the proposed authors. If Paul and Paul with Luke as amanuensis are excluded, there simply isn’t enough material available to produce a serious study.

    I wrote about the problems of evidence back in 2007 when reviewing (or writing notes on) Ruth Hoppin’s book Priscilla’s Letter. While the process of editing and publishing Dave Black’s book has provided a better basis for the claim of Pauline authorship, I would still stand by almost everything I wrote at that time.

  • Off to the Printer – The Authorship of Hebrews: The Case for Paul

    Just sent another book to the printer, in this case The Authorship of Hebrews: The Case for Paul by David Alan Black. I’ve heard some comments about my motivations for publishing this little book (just 42 pages). Money was mentioned, along with a burning desire to uphold traditional views. Those who know me will probably realize that my attitude is more “traditional views beware”!

    Considering we’ll be retailing the book for $4.99, and the ebook for just $0.99, I don’t think money is the strongest motivator, and it happens I’m not convinced of Dave’s thesis, even though I think he’s written about as convincing a case as could be written and has poked some serious holes in the scholarly consensus.

    What I think he does accomplish is to demonstrate how one challenges a scholarly consensus. First, one has to pay one’s academic dues. Then one has to thoroughly examine the data. Dave includes some of his own translations of patristic material, for example, and does some very significant work on vocabulary, style, and theology.

    One big question that remains–and a critical question it is!–and that’s just how much weight one puts on the patristic evidence. There are, of course, details in weighing particular sources, but there is also the more general question of how likely one believes it is that early Christian authors actually knew the answer to the question.

    I think Dave does an exemplary job of laying out his case and deserves to have it challenged and discussed on technical grounds. I’m also creating a blog/book site to support this, even though it’s a small book. I wanted a place to keep Dave’s comments on authorship and to stimulate discussion of the topic. Don’t expect too much on that new site until some time tomorrow.

  • Rhetorical Analysis of Hebrews 1:1-4

    I found Hebrews 1:1-4: A Study in Discourse Analysis via Dave Black Online today. Many elements here are not new, but this is the best concise presentation of these four important verses that I’ve found. Some may think that 19 pages on four verses isn’t concise, but considering the possibilities, I find it quite compact!

    While reading this analysis of the first four verses of Hebrews, it’s important to note the pointers to the way in which the book will be structured. The connection between verse 4 and what precedes, as well as follows it, for example, has often been misread as separating verse 4 from the prior 3 verses. It belongs with what precedes as part of the introduction, but it provides the link to what will be argued in verse 5ff.

    I need to post more of what I’m looking at right now in the book of Hebrews, but I have been short on time. Hopefully soon I will get to posting more.

  • Next Steps on Hebrews Outline

    I’ve been thinking about the Hebrews outlines, but not posting them. I’ve printed out a copy of my outline and translation and I plan to color code the text according to major themes that I see in the book of Hebrews. It will be interesting to see how well that works. One test of the major themes will be what the color coding looks like, I think.

    I’ll post more on this soon.

  • Some Comments on Hebrews Outlines

    I’ve posted a few links to various outlines for the book of Hebrews, though there are, of course, plenty of others. For summary, here are the main links:

    Dave Black commends Vanhoye’s work on the chiastic structure. I have a kind of perverse difficulty with chiasms. I tend to be skeptical of them precisely because I keep seeing them all over the place. At the same time, this is the best I’ve seen.

    Bob MacDonald’s contribution helps a great deal by color coding the material and helping one to see the connections.

    For a flat outline, David Reed’s outline is clear. I see it’s strengths as making the warnings stand out and connecting the doctrinal sections and exhortations. One outstanding characteristic of David’s outline is the presentation of Old Testament sources. I’m going to mention one of these in my next post.

    What I’m aiming for, however, is to make the themes that carry through the book clearly visible in the outline presentation. I’m going to try a flat outline plus color-coding and see how that works.

    So I’ll be commenting on all this some more as I play with it.

     

     

  • Another Link on Hebrews Structure

    Dave Black provided me with a link to his article, The Problem of the Literary Structure of Hebrews: An Evaluation and a Proposal, and I wanted to link that here and connect it to the previous post.

    Without intending violence to the overall value of the article, I found one of the most helpful parts to be a summary of Vanhoye’s structure and outline. Anything that has the word “chiasm” in it gets at least a second, if not a third, look from me!

  • A Rhetorical Outline of the Book of Hebrews

    Commenter David Reed e-mailed me a copy of his Rhetorical Outline of the Epistolary Sermon to the Hebrews. I’m embedding it here, trying out a new plugin. Besides your thoughts on the outline itself, I’d like your thoughts on how well embedding works.

    In the next couple of days I will comment on this outline just a bit, but I’ll let everyone see it without my comments first.

    Rhetorical Outline of the Letter to the Hebrews (David Reed)