Ein unerschütterliches Reich

Abstract

Ein unerschutterliches Reich: Die mittelplatonische Umformung des Parusiegedankens im Hebraerbrief, by Wilfried Eisele. BZNW 116. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Pp. xvii + 547. euro;128 (hardcover). ISBN 3110175959. This study, dissertation completed under direction of Michael Theobald at Eberhard-Karls-Universitat Tubingen, is one of growing number of works attempting to relate NT writings to first- and second-century Platonism. That such research is long overdue is not entirely fault of NT scholars, for very few Platonic texts have survived intact from first two centuries of common era. Students of ancient philosophy, moreover, have generally neglected such Middle Platonic writers as Albinus and Timaeus of Locri. The eclecticism of these figures makes it difficult to assess their thought terms of coherent system, and, as result, they usually receive attention as for Plotinus and Neoplatonic tradition (a bias reflected nomenclature-earlier German scholars sometimes referred to Middle Platonism as Vorneuplatonismus, pre-Neoplatonism). Inasmuch as its author speaks of OT cultus as a copy and shadow of heavenly (8:5), many perceive Letter to Hebrews earliest instance of Platonic influence on Christian thought. Standing tension with this vertical conception is horizontal notion of salvation history: God has spoken definitively in these last days (1:2). Even if one leaves off Eisele's German translations of key primary texts (pp. 429-502) and bibliography and indices (pp. 505-47), this study is perhaps most ambitious attempt to sketch putative Platonic background of letter. Most previous efforts at demonstrating philosophical character of letter focus exclusively on Philo as conduit through which Plato's ideas have come down to its author. The many similarities between Hebrews and Philo's writings make this assumption natural one, though quest to prove some sort of literary dependence has been largely abandoned. Because there is more to Platonism than one finds Philo, Eisele makes signal contribution by widening scope of question to include authors normally left out of discussion. Eisele's formidable volume is divided into three parts. As preliminary, introduction lays out three main religionsgeschichtliche options for situating letter, Hellenistic Jewish, Gnostic, and Jewish apocalyptic models, and also surveys various manifestations of parousia concept encountered NT. Part 1 (pp. 27-133) treats those passages that have usually been understood as allusions to second coming of Christ (1:6; 9:27-28; 10:25, 36-39; 12:25-29). Rhetorically, this proves much more effective than beginning with those passages that attract attention on account of their parallels with Platonic dualism (e.g., Heb 8:1-5; 9:11; 9:23-24; 10:1; 11:1-3). Had Eisele attempted this more direct route, his argument would have been susceptible to same kinds of alternative readings that undermine case for an Alexandrian provenance. Instead, he concentrates on references to parousia and marshals evidence suggesting that they are out of step with rest of letter. With exception of his brief treatment of Heb 10:25, exegesis carried out is carefully researched and integrated with sophisticated analysis of letter's overall literary structure. Eisele maintains that, for author, traditional temporal schema of Jewish apocalyptic has receded behind spatial-ontological conception; distinction between shakeable and unshakeable worlds has replaced tension between the already and the not yet (p. 132). Part 2 (pp. 135-368) contains Eisele's analysis of relevant Middle Platonic sources. He prefaces this analysis-two lengthy chapters on Philo and Plutarch and two shorter chapters on Seneca and Alcinous-with brief overview of state of philosophy first century and Middle Platonism's place within it. …