Abstract
This commentary on Hebrews draws heavily on Albert Vanhoye’s distinguished prior work on the epistle, particularly around questions of the letter’s structure, rhetorical flow, and priestly interests. As such, it is something of a compendium of Vanhoye’s previous thinking on Hebrews (as espoused, for example, in his recent volume A Different Priest). It is, therefore, a commentary of a particular form; the tone is fairly homiletic (in a good sense), and its discussion is aimed very much at a lay audience. Hebrews scholars will find little here that is particularly new, but they will be ‘reminded’ of Vanhoye’s influential work on aspects of the letter’s interpretation, notably around questions of structure. The commentary’s assumed readership is a confessional one, and this is manifested by common references to matters liturgical.
Such a focus still yields positive results. As one might expect, there is close attention to structural matters, and to literary devices such as chiasms, and the commentary does a good job of tracing the flow of the epistolary argument, particularly for someone new to the text of Hebrews. There is some coverage of introductory matters (Barnabas’ authorship is described as the ‘preferable’ option, for example), but such discussion is not particularly extensive; Vanhoye does, though, embrace Estius’ hypothesis that 13:22–5 is a ‘dispatch note’ from the Apostle Paul, and therefore responsible for giving the letter a Pauline guarantee. There is, however, very little, if any, interaction with other secondary literature (only the short introduction has any footnotes); the volume has a limited bibliography, but the sources are somewhat dated (there is only one non-Vanhoye, post-2000 source cited, and most of the works included are Vanhoye’s own). Likewise, he works from his own translation of the Epistle. This means very little, if any, interaction with original language matters (potentially beneficial for a lay readership), but equally necessitates that lexical discussion tends to focus around the particularity of Vanhoye’s own translation, nuances of which other scholars may wish to contest.
Overall, this commentary is what it is, namely Vanhoye’s take on the letter, offered in an informed, section-by-section analysis. It is worth consideration for that level of interaction, but the scope/extent of its analysis is not wide.