7/29/2019 Hbner, An Philemon, An die Kolosser, An die Epheser

1/2

HBNER, HANS, AN PHILEMON, AN DIE KOLOSSER, AN DIE EPHESER (HNT 12). TBINGEN: MOHR-SIEBECK, 1997. PP. XII + 277. DM 59,00 (PAPER).

Reviewer: Jerry L. Sumney

Lexington Theological Seminary, Lexington, KY 40508

Rather than revising the well-known volume by H. Dibelius and H. Greeven, Hbner has written a

completely new commentary. Still, he conscientiously enters into conversation with Dibelius /

Greeven, especially when discussing matters that they dealt with in some distinctive way. As one

expects from this series, Hbner gives constant and careful attention to the Hellenistic background

of ideas, images, and concepts found in the letters, although he breaks no new ground here. His

search for the background of these letters is not limited to religionsgeschichte research. In fact, he

explicitly orders the importance of types of background material so that one looks first to the

Pauline letters, then to the LXX, and then the religionsgeschichte parallels. In the case of

Ephesians, he also looks to Colossians early on. To incorporate these investigations the author has

included many excurses. But these are not limited to background research; some are on theological

topics as well as a wide range of other subjects, including such matters as the worldview of theauthor ofEphesians and whether the devil exists (given in conjunction with the Ephesians passage

on the armor with which the Christian resists the devil).

Hbner sees these three letters as a set with each being dependent upon the others for its

preservation and inclusion in the Pauline corpus, with the references to the same characters

establishing the ties. Hbner mostly assumes rather than argues that Colossians is deutero-Pauline

andEphesians is trito-Pauline. The consistency with which he interprets Colossians andEphesians

within this framework is one of the distinctive characteristics of this commentary. When dealing

with Colossians he often comments on how he sees it building on and being different from the

undisputed Paulines (see e.g. his discussion of faith and hope, pp. 45-47). His methodology for

interpreting Ephesians is that he looks first to Colossians, then the undisputed Paulines, and then

the LXX. But this does not mean Hbner thinks that Ephesians only approaches Paul through

Colossians, as we see in the case of pneumatology (p. 147), where Ephesians returns to Paul

without going through Colossians. The excursus on the differences between Paul, Colossians, and

Ephesians with which the commentary ends summarizes the differences in outlook he sees in the

three. He finds the greatest development in ecclesiology, with Ephesians developing an

ecclesiology that requires a more realized eschatology than that found in Paul.

Hbner is extremely skeptical about the use of rhetorical analysis when interpreting

Colossians andEphesians because they are dependent upon Paul's letters for their structure. Thus,

by his accounting, the whole of the structure of both these letters is determined more by their

reception and application of Pauline elements than by techniques of rhetorical invention. Thus, no

elements of rhetorical criticism are employed in this commentary. While there is good reason todoubt that any NT writer felt bound to comply with rules found in handbooks about rhetorical

invention, Hbners view may unduly minimize the influence of the rhetorical tradition. It is not

clear to this reader that the reliance of these letters on Pauls letters for some elements makes it less

probable that they were also influenced by other examples of successful argumentation, perhaps

even as those successes were analyzed by those who taught rhetoric. Thus, some attention to

rhetorical matters might have proven helpful. Similarly, the function of literacy features sometimes

receives less attention than one might expect. So Hbner identifies the mentioning of Pauls

imprisonment in Eph 4:1 and 6:20 as an inclusio, but then makes no comment about how this might

shape the intervening material.

Hbner takes great care, especially in Colossians, to trace the ways various themes or

language reappear throughout the letter. He is careful to distinguish between polemical uses of astatement and other non-polemical uses of the same expression that often set the stage for the

7/29/2019 Hbner, An Philemon, An die Kolosser, An die Epheser

2/2

later polemical use. His comments on the ways that the polemical sections ofColossians (2:6ff) use

elements of the hymn of chapter 1 are a good example of the way that he draws out a sense of the

unity of the argument of the letter.

Hbner argues that the whole ofEphesians is determined by paraenesis, a contention that he

supports within the recognized hortatory sections of the latter. Rather than relegating the household

code of 5:21-33 to a place of insignificance, he argues that its instructions are of theologicalimportance for the whole letter. He asserts that, in this place, the paraenesis is there in the service

of the theology rather than being an outgrowth of the theology. The theological point being made,

he argues, is that existence in all realities except that within the body of Christ is secondary. This

argument is another good example of the thoughtful ways Hbner ties together the various parts of

these letters to show the coherence of their arguments.

This commentary fits quite well within the tradition of the HNT series and is a good

contribution to it. It has the strengths the series is known for as well as interesting comments on

theological concepts while it traces various themes through the letters.

Copyright 2000 by the Society of Biblical Literature

Easy-to-print version.

Last updated: 07/31/2000