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...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Brill
2023
|
| Dans: |
Novum Testamentum
Année: 2023, Volume: 65, Numéro: 4, Pages: 517-543 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Bibel. Hebräerbrief
/ Philo, Alexandrinus 25 avant J.-C.-40
|
| RelBib Classification: | BH Judaïsme HC Nouveau Testament HD Judaïsme ancien |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Hebrews
B Literary Dependence B Hellenistic Judaism B Philo |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Résumé: | 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 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Novum Testamentum
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15685365-bja10054 |