I must have been sleepier than usual when I wrote that Williamson was a
defender of Philonic influence on Hebrews. Actually Williamson argues against
dependence on Philo (Spicq being his whipping boy), but FOR Platonic
influence. The Alexandrian claim is, therefore, still made in his work.
Hurst is just as critical of Platonic influence as he is of Philonian,
and it was THAT critique (i.e., of Plato as background for Hebrews) that
reportedly sent Williamson (who was lined up to be one of Hurst's D.Phil.
examiners) into a fit.
Jeffrey Gibson
jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu