Reviews of

Hebrews: A Different Priest and a New Commentary

In Albert VANHOYE, commentary, Convivium, Hebrews, New Testament, Nicholas J. Moore, Paulist Press, review article on February 10, 2016 at 12:00 am

9781934996201_large

2016.02.03  Albert Vanhoye. A Different Priest: The Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by Leo Arnold. Rhetorica Semitica. Miami, FL: Convivium, 2011. Paperback. 450 pp. ISBN 9781934996201.

Albert Vanhoye. The Letter to the Hebrews: A New Commentary. Translated by Leo Arnold. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 2015. Paperback. V + 266 pp. ISBN 9780809149285.

Review article by Nicholas Moore.

Many thanks to Convivium Press and Paulist Press for providing review copies.

1. Introduction

“He who walks with the wise grows wise.” These two books, freshly written and translated, offer to a new audience a distillation of over six decades of reflection, research, and teaching on the Letter to the Hebrews. Albert Vanhoye SJ, a former Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute and former President of SNTS who was made cardinal in 2006, is without any doubt one of the most significant French biblical scholars of the twentieth century. Throughout his long career Hebrews has remained his home turf, with significant contributions in the areas of structure, priesthood, and Christology, alongside constructive use of the letter in reflections on, for example, the nature and practice of ministry in the church and modern Christian-Jewish relations. Several of his works have been translated into English, but in these volumes Leo Arnold makes available to the Anglophone world for the first time Vanhoye’s commentary on Hebrews as a whole.

The Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1–3 in Irenaeus of Lyons

In Brill, Eric Covington, Genesis, Irenaeus of Lyons, Patristic exegesis, Patristics, Reception history, Stephen O. PRESLEY on January 13, 2016 at 11:15 am

presley

2016.01.02 | Stephen O. Presley. The Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1–3 in Irenaeus of Lyons (The Bible in Ancient Christianity; Leiden: Brill, 2015). Hardback. 267 pages + 34 pages bibliography & indices.

Review by Eric Covington, University of St Andrews.

Many thanks to Brill Publishers for providing a MyBook paperback inspection copy.

In The Intertextual Reception of Genesis 1–3 in Irenaeus of Lyons, Stephen O. Presley examines every reference to Gen 1–3 in Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies, abbreviated hereafter as Haer.) to demonstrate how Irenaeus interprets Genesis’ protological narratives within an intertextual network spanning the entire biblical canon.
Presley argues that Irenaeus’ intertextual exegesis is an outworking of his particular view of scriptural consonance informed by his doctrine of revelation and creation.

Presley works systematically through each of Irenaeus’ references to Gen 1–3 following the structure and order of Haer.
After the book’s introduction, Chapter 2 focuses on Haer. 1 where Irenaeus recounts the theological and cosmological framework of competing “Gnostic” groups including the Valentinians, Marcosians, Saturnius, the Encratites, Tatian, and the Ophites. Presley highlights various reading strategies these groups used in their own exegesis of Gen 1–3.  Apart from the use of gematria, which Irenaeus rejects as overly allegorical (cf. p. 244), these same reading strategies are characteristic of Irenaeus’ exegesis of Gen 1–3. 

Morphological and Syntactical Irregularities in the Book of Revelation

In Apocalyptic, Brill, Garrick V. Allen, Laurenţiu Florentin MOT, New Testament, Revelation on January 4, 2016 at 2:00 pm

 

31MzPdEaClL._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_

2016.01.01 | Laurenţiu Florentin Moţ. Morphological and Syntactical Irregularities in the Book of Revelation: A Greek Hypothesis. Linguistic Biblical Studies 11. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

Review by Garrick V. Allen, Institut für Septuaginta und biblische Textforschung, Wuppertal.

Thanks to Brill Publishers for providing a MyBook paperback inspection copy.

In this revised version of his PhD dissertation, Laurenţiu Moţ examines grammatical irregularities in the book of Revelation. He ultimately argues that Revelation’s grammatical issues are not the result of the author’s background in Semitic languages, but are best explained as inner-Greek anomalies.

Moţ begins with an extensive history of research on so-called solecisms in Revelation, tracing the conversation from Dionysius of Alexandria through to the twenty-first century (pp. 1-30). Next, Moţ presents his primary research questions. His study seeks to answer five questions (pp. 30-31):

  1. How many grammatical anomalies are in Revelation?
  2. How should they be classified?
  3. Are these irregularities the author’s intentional creations?
  4. If so, how can this be explained?
  5. How do the irregularities affect the meaning of the text.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 262 other followers