Wednesday, September 30, 2009

September 2009 Hebrews Carnival

The book of Hebrews has garned considerable attention in the blogosphere this month:

Tony Siew offers a reflection on The Way of Prayer based on Hebrews 5:7.

William Varner proposes that Jude is the author of Hebrews. The evidence he cites is by no means decisive. The similarities between Jude and Hebrews--such as sermonic form, use of OT, references to non-canonical sources, use of extended benediction, and elevated style--seems to me to be rather generic and could be said of other early Christian writings. His argument that the "brief exhortation" of Hebrews 13:22 refers to another letter, the epistle of Jude, is highly conjectural.

Some possible objections: Why does Jude identify himself in the letter of Jude, but nowhere identifies himself in Hebrews (if in fact he is the author)? The writer of Hebrews frequently quotes the OT, but Jude only alludes to OT passages. It would be interesting to actually compare the literary style of the two books, but Jude is likely too small to say anything conclusive. At best Jude as the author only remains a possibility, but not a likely one.

The author of Diglotting claims that he has solved the authorship of Hebrews . . . and that it is Jude! He notes the similarity of the usage of hapax and deuterou in Hebrews and Jude. But, alas! he writes in jest.

Michael Bird announced the publication of the inaugural volumes of the New Covenant Commentary Series. For our purposes here on this blog, I note that Tom Thatcher is slated to author the volume on Hebrews.

Peter Lopez offers the next installments of his study notes on Hebrews chapter 3, chapter 4 and chapter 5. He also gives synopses of week 2 and week 3 of the Bible study he is leading.

Peter Head has been working his way through the Hebrews text of P46 which has led to a series of posts on the textual variants of Hebrews (see my previous carnivals). This month he first discusses a textual variant in Hebrews 1:8, "The Sceptre of His Kingdom." He also discusses textual variants and reading marks in P46 for Hebrews 2:5-8. He has another post on the variants of Hebrews 2:8 and the textual apparatus of NA27.

Patrick George McCullough has an interview with Michael Cosby in which he briefly discusses his doctoral dissertation on Hebrews 11. Cosby's dissertation was published with Mercer University Press as: The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11: In Light of Example Lists in Antiquity.

It appears that Rafael is beginning a series of posts on the essays in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods--New Insights, edited by Gabriella Gelardini. He begins with a review of Ekkehard and Wolfgang Stegemann's essay, "Does the Cultic Language in Hebrews Represent Sacrificial Metaphors? Reflections on Some Basic Problems." Next he reflects upon Christian Eberhart's essay, "Characteristics of Sacrificial Metaphors in Hebrews."

William Varner returns with another post exploring the Spirituality of the Letter to the Hebrews. He concludes that the heart of our spirituality is to focus on Jesus.

Rod Decker has posted his paper that he presented at the Second Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics, "The Law, the New Covenant, and the Christian: Studies in Hebrews 7-10." I will add this paper to my electronics articles page.

Ken Schenck promises that he will be continuing his Explanatory Notes on Hebrews again. He provides the links to all his previous posts in the series.

Peter Kirk believes that he has found "Manuscript Support for the TNIV Rendering of Hebrews 2:6," referencing Peter Head's post mentioned above.

George comments briefly on the participial and relative clauses in Hebrews 1:1-4, while Jason was impressed by William Lane's comments on Hebrews 2:5-9.

George also has a couple of "Words of the Day" which have particular relevance for understanding the name of this blog here and here. :-)


  1. Thanks Brian,

    This is very helpful (as is the rest of your blog).

  2. Thanks, Brian, for the link to my conversation with Cosby. I'm happy to find your blog!

    I know a few of your colleagues over there at Baylor. Seems like a great place!


  3. Certainly, gentlemen. Thanks for your comments

  4. Thanks for the links!