From: Jeffrey Gibson (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Feb 09 1997 - 12:40:53 EST
On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
> For a thorough review of the alleged Philonic/Alexandrian background to
> Hebrews, check out Lincoln Hurst's book _The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its
> background and thought_. Hurst finds the Alexandrian hypothesis wanting,
> a fact which sent Williamson (a staunch defended or Philonic influence)
> nearly round the bend.
I must have been sleepier than usual when I wrote that Williamson was a
defender of Philonic influence on Hebrews. Actually Williamson argues against
dependence on Philo (Spicq being his whipping boy), but FOR Platonic
influence. The Alexandrian claim is, therefore, still made in his work.
Hurst is just as critical of Platonic influence as he is of Philonian,
and it was THAT critique (i.e., of Plato as background for Hebrews) that
reportedly sent Williamson (who was lined up to be one of Hurst's D.Phil.
examiners) into a fit.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:05 EDT