The Chiastic Structure Of The Prologue To Hebrews -- By: Daniel J. Ebert IV

Journal: Trinity Journal
Volume: TRINJ 13:2 (Fall 1992)
Article: The Chiastic Structure Of The Prologue To Hebrews
Author: Daniel J. Ebert IV


The Chiastic Structure Of The Prologue To Hebrews

Daniel J. Ebert IV*

I. Introduction

The opening verses of the Epistle to the Hebrews form one of the most beautiful sentences in the NT. The sentence reflects the careful style of the writer and calls for special attention. Many have remarked on its literary excellence.1 The text is important theologically as well. It provides material for the doctrines of revelation, redemption, for christology and eschatology.2

Recently a number of studies have focused on the structure of this prologue.3 The unit is so structurally intricate and theologically pregnant that it almost defies a full analysis: each approach, while highlighting certain important features, obscures others. What would be helpful would be an understanding of how the author intended to organize his opening sentence.4 The studies on the structure of Heb 1:1–4 to date, though in many ways helpful, have failed to identify correctly the prologue’s overall symmetrical design. This is partly because the hymn fragment theory has directed attention away from the text to its alleged pre-history. But clues to the author’s intended pattern must be taken

* Daniel Ebert is a Ph.D. Candidate in New Testament studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

from the text itself and from the text taken as a whole.5 The proposal of this paper is that when this approach is followed the structure of the prologue can be identified as an A B C D C´ B´ A´ chiastic pattern. The presentation and validation of this proposal follows in section II. Observations are then made with regard to the hymn fragment theory in section III. In the final section some implications of this proposal for the study of Hebrews are briefly discussed.

II. The Structure Of Heb 1:1–4

A. Chiastic Structures in Hebrews

The seminal work of Albert Vanhoye on the literary structure of Hebrews will inevitably change the way commentators approach the epistle.6 The initial neglect and criticism, to which new research is often subject, will give way to attention and adaptation.7 This direction is already manifest in the noteworthy commentary of W. H. Attridge. Although Attridge recognizes the weaknesses inherent in a purely structural approach, he writes of Vanhoye’s work, �...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()