Direct Dependence on Philo in the Epistle to the Hebrews

The near consensus opinion that the author of Hebrews was not directly influenced by Philo needs to be reevaluated. Even though there are no obvious cases of borrowing, the cumulative weight of the evidence indicates a more linear relationship than what may be accounted for by situating them both wi...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Grindheim, Sigurd 1968- (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Brill 2023
In: Novum Testamentum
Year: 2023, Volume: 65, Issue: 4, Pages: 517-543
Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains:B Hebrews / Philo, Alexandrinus 25 BC-40
IxTheo Classification:BH Judaism
HC New Testament
HD Early Judaism
Further subjects:B Hebrews
B Literary Dependence
B Hellenistic Judaism
B Philo
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Description
Summary:The near consensus opinion that the author of Hebrews was not directly influenced by Philo needs to be reevaluated. Even though there are no obvious cases of borrowing, the cumulative weight of the evidence indicates a more linear relationship than what may be accounted for by situating them both within Hellenistic Judaism. A number of parallels are sufficiently detailed to suggest direct dependence. These parallels are of a formal character, such as the metaphor of the dagger and the particular use of the terms ὑπόστασις, ἀρχηγός, τελειόω, ἄθλησις, τεχνίτης, and δημιουργός, as well of a material nature, concerning the development of key ideas, such as the eternal nature of the Son, his Melchizedekian high-priesthood, and the perception of the heavenly sanctuary.
ISSN:1568-5365
Contains:Enthalten in: Novum Testamentum
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1163/15685365-bja10054