I first came across the writings of Harold Hoehner when I was in college. He was writing a series of articles for Bibliotheca Sacra (or BibSac, as it is called by folks at DTS) on chronological aspects of Jesus’ life. I was amazed at how he went about establishing the probable date of Jesus’ birth, death, resurrection, and certain points in his ministry. He brought in evidence from all sides, did not present only one viewpoint but discussed several angles, was less than dogmatic with his conclusions, interacted with literature, both ancient and modern and in a number of languagues. He seemed to leave no stone unturned. His judgments were sober and even-handed. I was deeply impressed. (I later learned that this work was essentially based on his second earned doctorate, this one at Cambridge University.)

After reading Hoehner’s arguments on the death of Christ (Friday crucifixion, Nisan 14 or April 3, AD 33), I wrote to him and suggested that another argument that Jesus died on Nisan 14 and that he presented himself to the nation on Nisan 10 was that it fulfilled the typology of Exodus 12:1–6. To my surprise and delight, Hoehner wrote back! And he politely pointed out that my argument could only be brought in as tertiary evidence, for although Jesus did indeed fulfill the typology of the OT, as historians we must look at the evidence that is of a historical nature—that is, evidence that both Christians and non-Christians would embrace—and we must also recognize that typological fulfillment often went in various directions, preventing us from cherry-picking in support of a view. For example, Jesus was not a year old when he died; he was not killed by fire but by crucifixion, etc. In other words, typology can be used in a confirmatory manner for historical study, but not as primary or secondary evidence. It’s what one brings in when discussing the results of one’s investigation.

What struck me was that Hoehner was unwilling to use evangelical apologetic devices as part of his defense of historical research. I wasn intrigued.

A couple of years later, when I decided that I needed to go to seminary, I took several courses from Hoehner. In NT Intro, he discussed the pros and cons of higher criticism. To my surprise, he mentioned several pros to each of the standard criticisms. Yet, he was and is solidly evangelical.

As my time at seminary went on, I began to see in Hoehner a man who was as wise as he was intelligent. A good friend of mine, whose father had not been the best role model, essentially adopted Hoehner as his surrogate father during his days in seminary. Hoehner didn’t realize this, but he fulfilled the role admirably.

When I graduated, Hoehner asked me to join the NT department for a couple of years. As I saw him from the other side of the podium, my respect grew even more. He was and is a stickler for form, having memorized (or at least, so goes the rumor!) Kate Turabian’s handbook on style. And he insisted on students citing primary sources rather than those that quote others. I learned a great deal from him about how to do proper research.

Over the years of being on faculty with this man, I have come to admire him for his influence on my family, whether he realized it or not. He ingrained in me the importance of insulating rather than isolating our children.

He has a wicked sense of humor, cracking Aggie jokes in class and being an unashamed devotee to Montie Python.

Over my 23 years of being on the faculty at Dallas Seminary, I have seen Hoehner time and time again take on the role of advocate for those who have little or no voice. He has led the way to change policies about summer school salary, sabbatical length, curriculum revision, faculty workload, class sizes, etc. At all points, he is interested in the best possible education for students and fair treatment for faculty. I believe that Hoehner has been a naysayer in faculty votes more than all the rest of the faculty combined. That is to say, he has gone against the tide, often alone, because he is true to his convictions. He’s never backed down from a fight that needed to be fought, and he’s defended the oppressed as though their cause was his own. Most remarkably, he’s done this when the position he has taken would often have negative implications for him personally. But he did it because it was the right thing to do.

Besides what he has done for Dallas Seminary as a whole, Hoehner has also developed the New Testament department. Since he became chairman of the department in the mid-seventies, he has hand-picked his faculty members, sent many of them oveseas to earn their doctorates, and developed the consistency of curriculum that the NT department is known for. We have an incredibly strong department, in no small thanks to Harold Hoehner. One of his great accomplishments was the development of fourth semester Greek, a course originally on the exegesis of Ephesians. Under Hoehner’s supervision, it morphed from a content course to a methods course. It became a course on exegetical method, using Ephesians as the text on which the principles were applied. (The recent Festschrift for Hoehner, Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis, is an extension of what we do in that course; that book has, in turn, become a model for how to do exegesis.) When I taught for a couple of years at another seminary, I offered a similar course as an elective. Soon, I was teaching two sections of this elective each semester! A few years later, that seminary changed this elective to a required course.

After more than two decades, Hoehner finally published his commentary on Ephesians. Some have considered this to be the standard commentary on Ephesians against which all others must now be measured. It is brilliant, comprehensive, fair, and clear.

I see in Harold a godly man, whose great intellect is only matched by his wisdom, courage, and cheerful demeanor. He’s just about retired now from his long tenure at DTS. Dallas Seminary is an immeasurably better institute because of Harold Hoehner. I hope and pray that we will continue on the path on which this great man has helped to put us.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!