Polumeros kai Polutropos

This video is a couple years old now:

Loveday and Philip Alexander: "Why write another commentary on Hebrews?"

I look forward to their commentary which will be in the ICC series.

I have come across what appears to be the most substantial commentary on Hebrews - at least what I have found to date:

Samuel Pérez Millos. Hebreos. Comentario Exegético al Texto Griego del Nuevo Testamento. Viladecavalls (Barcelona), Spain: Editorial Clie, 2009.

The commentary weighs in at 865 pages. It begins with a roughly 40 page introduction dealing with canonicity, authorship, destination, reason for writing, date and place, theme, relation of the epistle with the Old and New Testaments, and the relation of the epistle to biblical theology. This is followed by a verse-by-verse commentary on the Greek text.

The commentary has very little footnotes and the bibliography is only a little over two pages with mostly works in Spanish (many translated from English) and a few in English. So, it may not have the same level of academic rigor as some of the more technical commentaries found in other languages. But to date I have not found anything more substantial in the Spanish language.

It just happens to be available for download on the internet.

This is a first: I have discovered a commentary on Hebrews in Welsh!

Gan W. Rees. Nodiadau Eglurhaol ac Ymarferol ar yr Epistol at yr Hebreaid.

It has been a slow month for the book of Hebrews:

Alan Knox offers a meditation on Hebrews 2:9-11.

Ruth Ann Reese gives recommendations on building a NT Library for Hebrews-Revelation. Her recommendations for Hebrews includes commentaries by David deSilva, Craig Koester, and Luke Timothy Johnson.

David Alan Black draws attention to an interview with David Allen about his forthcoming books on Hebrews.

Koester, Craig R. “The Epistle to the Hebrews in Recent Study.” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 2 (1994): 123-45.
Craig Koester (1953- ) has been Professor of New Testament at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota since 1986. He has published a commentary on Hebrews for the Anchor Bible Commentary, as well as several articles on Hebrews.
This review of research on Hebrews nicely compliments J. C. McCullough’s two articles of the same year. While McCullough focuses on introductory issues such as authorship, recipients, genre, structure, style, and date, Koester concentrates on the following topics: 1) Commentaries, 2) Literary and Rhetorical Aspects, 3) Historical, Social, and Religious Context, 4) Theological Themes and Major Passages, and 5) History of Interpretation and Influence. Koester’s article concludes with an eight-page bibliography. Koester’s article covers the previous ten years since the publication of Helmut Feld’s survey.
Commentaries: Koester provides brief overviews of English commentaries by Attridge, Lane, and Ellingworth (NIGTC). Passing references are made to Wilson, Ellingworth, Bruce, Kistemaker, and Evans. Koester then makes brief comments on the German commentaries by Weiss, Grässer, Hegermann, and Braun, and the French commentary by Bénétreau. Passing references are made to Laub and März. Basically, Koester enumerates the contents of the introductory sections and excurses and the general layout of each commentary.
Literary and Rhetorical Aspects: Numerous scholars have paid attention to the various literary and rhetorical devices employed by Hebrews (Attridge; Lane; Jobes; Cosby; Lindars; Mitchell). Wills attempts to identify the features of Hebrews’ self-designation as a “word of exhortation,” while Black attempts to relate this form to classical rhetoric. Scholars differ on the type of rhetoric employed in Hebrews: some argue that Hebrews is a kind of deliberative rhetoric (Übelacker; Lindars), while others consider it epideictic (Attridge). Koester remarks that Hebrews does not fall neatly into either category. Scholars have tried to relate the different sections of Hebrews to the parts of ancient speeches.
Regarding structure, Vanhoye proposed a five-part concentric structure of the book, while others hold to a tripartite structure (Michel; Weiss). Various proponents have sided with both proposals. Alternative structures have also been presented by Übelacker and Brawley. Dunnill investigated the relationship between the “forward, linear movement of Hebrews” and its “repetitive or circular quality” (127).
Historical, Social, and Religious Contexts: Scholars agree that the author is unknown (e.g., Attridge; Ellingworth; Grässer; Lane; Weiss). Scholars either date the work before 70 AD (e.g., Bénétreau; Lane; Lindars; Ellingworth) or after it (e.g., Hegermann; Grässer; Isaacs; Weiss). Many situate the recipients of Hebrews in Rome (e.g., Attridge; Bruce; Ellingworth; Lane; Weiss), while Dunnill locates them in Western Asia Minor.
Concerning the social situation of the recipients, scholars have noted that Hebrews is addressed to a specific group within a wider Christian community (Weiss; Lindars) and that they are probably members of a house church (Lane). Scholars have determined that the ethnicity of the recipients were either Jewish (Bruce; Rissei; Feld; Lindars; Isaacs), Gentile (Braun; Weiss; Delville), or mixed (Ellingworth; Grässer). Scholars have surmised various scenarios for the occasion of the writing: crisis of faith triggered by Neronian persecution (Lane); a relapse into Judaism as a means of dealing with their need for atonement (Lindars); moral lethargy (Schmidt); a weariness of the faith of second-generation Christians (Grässer); a “preoccupation with sacred space . . . connected with the loss of Jerusalem and its temple” (129). Attridge argues that the author constructed a complex response to an equally complex situation in which no one problem is the key to understanding the situation.
Regarding Hebrews’ relationship to other early Christian groups, affinities with 1 Peter suggest a common Christian tradition, possibly in Rome (Hurst; Weiss; Attridge; Witherington; Backus). Manson’s proposal of a connection with Hellenistic Christians as exemplified by Stephen in Acts 7 was adopted with modifications by some scholars (Hurst; Lane; Lindars). Many scholars have also tried to locate Hebrews within the larger religious and intellectual context such as Hellenism (including Philo), Gnosticism, and apocalyptic Judaism. Scholars recognize that Hebrews utilizes extra-biblical Jewish sources, but mystic traditions and Samaritan sources are of little help in interpreting Hebrews. Much attention has been given to similarities between Hebrews and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but it is likely that neither the author nor the audience were related to the Qumran community in any way (Lehne; Scholer et al). Greco-Roman sources have also been used to help in the interpretation of Hebrews (Aune; Neyrey; van der Horst).
Theological Themes and Major Passages: Dunnill examined the concepts of sacrifice and covenant from an anthropological perspective. Isaacs investigated the notion of sacred space as a way of drawing together all the themes of Hebrews. Rissi claimed that the problems arising for the recipients of Hebrews originated from their idea of realized eschatology. Lindars contended that Hebrews addresses the audience’s problems of atonement for sin and guilt. Numerous studies have been done on the various aspects of the Christology of Hebrews (Meier; Dunn; Caird; Hurst; Savey), and in particular the author’s high-priestly Christology (Vanhoye; Estrada; Casalini; Laub; Bénétreau; Levoratti; Pursiful). Other studies have focused on the subject of the sanctuary (Lindars; Gordon; Löhr; Koester), the relationship between the high-priestly work of Christ and the priestly understanding of Christian life and community (Vanhoye; Fernάndez; Scholer; Nardoni; Swetnam), or the concept of faith (Hamm; Söding; Attridge; Weiss).
History of Interpretation and Influence: Commentators have examined the canonization process of Hebrews (Weiss; Lane; Ellingworth) and its role within the debates of the early church and the Reformation (Feld). Scholars have also begun to examine the history of Hebrews’ influence “by noting how the text is used in theological, devotional and polemical writings, liturgy and art, as well as in commentaries” (137). Grässer and Feld have engaged in special studies on the history of influence.

Carlston, Charles E. “Commentaries on Hebrews: A Review Article.” Andover Newton Review 1 (1990): 27-45.

Charles Edwin Carlston served as Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Andover Newton Theological School.

Carlston’s essay surveys popular, semi-popular, and scholarly commentaries on the book of Hebrews. In the popular category he places Herbert Chilstrom, Juliana Casey, William Johnsson (in the Knox Preaching Guide series), and David Gooding. He classifies the works of Donald Hagner (NIBC), Donald Guthrie, and Robert Jewett as semi-popular. These works have a higher level of scholarship than those in the popular category and would be most useful to the pastor or Bible study leader. Under the heading of scholarly works which have the best scholarship and most detailed exegesis he includes Harold Attridge, Harald Hegermann, and Herbert Braun. William Lane’s popular commentary is mentioned in a postscript but not reviewed. This article appeared before Lane’s two-volume Word commentary came out.

Carlston’s general approach (with variation) to each work begins with an overview of introductory issues such as authorship, date, provenance, circumstances for the writing etc., and the overall message of the book. He also indicates each author’s general theological tendencies. He highlights each author’s interpretations of key passages (1:3; 2:9; 4:12-13: 5:7; 8:1; 9:16-18: 12:2 etc. seem to be some of Carlston’s interpretive cruxes) and how they treat textual variants. He discusses their treatments of the history of religions context and theological issues such as hermeneutics, faith, Christology, eschatology etc. He also mentions the general layout of each work and the nature of their bibliographies and indices. He concludes with an overall evaluation of each work and its usefulness for preaching. Naturally, Carlston interjects his own views throughout the reviews. Carlston gives a helpful, concise overview of the works involved.

Starting off the month of August Jared Calaway in his post Sword-in-Mouth Disease continued with his musings on the sword/mouth imagery that is found in several ancient sources including Hebrews.

Jared has also posted some reflections on Ken Schenck's book Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews.

Stephen Hebert continues his series on the textual variants in Hebrews 2:9. In Part 4 he continues to examine the internal evidence in favor of χωρις, rather than χαριτι. χωρις is more in accord with the vocabulary of Hebrews than χαριτι. Furthermore, it is the more difficult reading, since a scribe would more likely have changed χωρις to read χαριτι. It appears then that the external evidence and the internal evidence conflict with one another. In Part 5 he deals with the methodological issues involved in using patristic citations.

In other postings on textual criticism, Peter Head first deals with a textual variant in Hebrews 1:1, "God spoke to our fathers." He then deals with textual variants in Hebrews 1:3, "the word of power."

And finally, Tommy Wasserman reported an announcement by Claire Clivaz on the registration of a new fourth-century, papyrus fragment, P126, containing Hebrews 13:12-13, 19-20.

Scot McKnight gives his recommendations for commentaries on Hebrews. No qualms about this list. See also the recommendations in the comments section.

Peter Lopez announced in his post, Hebrews Bible Study, that he will be teaching a Bible study on Hebrews at his home church and that he will be blogging about his experience. The comments section has some discussion about commentaries. He offers his study notes on chapter 1 and chapter 2, as well as his reflections on week 1 of his study.

Also going around the blogs this month was a clever little video produced by Aaron Rathburn introducing Hebrews 1:1-4 with a Star Wars theme.

I just learned about this useful site, Best Commentaries.com. It includes numerous reviews on commentaries, as well as extensive lists ranking the commentaries. You may not entirely agree with the rankings, however. I know I don't. What I found to be of interest is the listing of forthcoming commentaries. The list is not complete, though. I know for a fact that Gary Cockerill is writing the Hebrews commentary for NICNT and Philip and Loveday Alexander are slated to write the Hebrews commentary for the ICC. I am placing a permanent link to this site under resources.