Читать книгу Polemic in the Book of Hebrews - Lloyd Kim - Страница 9

We shall approach the question of anti-Semitism, anti-Judaism, and supersessionism in Hebrews by applying the socio-rhetorical method to three specific polemical passages: Heb 7:1-19, 8:1-13, and 10:1-10.1 The socio-rhetorical approach will be particularly helpful in this study because it blends together rhetorical criticism, social-scientific criticism, as well as other modern methods.2 In this chapter, we will first review rhetorical and socio-scientific studies on Hebrews. Then, we will describe and evaluate the socio-rhetorical approach.

Review of Rhetorical Approaches to Hebrews

General Trends

The socio-rhetorical approach has its roots in rhetorical criticism, which can be divided into three major trajectories: literary-aesthetic studies, rhetorical criticism, and the “new rhetoric” of Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca.3

Literary-Aesthetic Studies

The modern history of rhetorical criticism began with James Muilenburg’s 1968 Presidential address to the Society of Biblical Literature. At that forum, he asked what would come after form criticism.4 Muilenburg wanted to move beyond form criticism, which did not do enough to examine authorial creativity and composition. He also wanted to head off the new literary critical movement, which seemed to discount any historical considerations when examining a text.5 Amos Niven Wilder also promoted a rhetorical approach that was historically grounded. He did not want to separate form from content.6 However, what has emerged from Muilenburg’s and Wilder’s work is a view that rhetorical criticism is primarily an examination of the aesthetics or literary properties of the text.

Rhetorical Criticism

A second movement promoted by George A. Kennedy is referred to as “rhetorical criticism.” Kennedy shifted the focus from rhetoric as literary artistry to rhetoric as the art of persuasion, using classical Greek rhetoric as his guide.7 Though he was not the first to adopt this more technical definition of rhetoric for New Testament interpretation, he was perhaps the most influential.8 He distinguishes rhetorical criticism from (new) literary criticism in that literary criticism is concerned with how modern readers read these ancient documents, while rhetorical criticism seeks to discern how the ancient readers read the works in their own context.9

Kennedy outlines an approach that begins with identifying the rhetorical unit. He defines a unit as that which has a beginning, middle, and an end.10 He notes that one must look for signs that indicate a proem and epilogue (i.e., inclusios, etc.). Once the unit is determined, one must turn to form criticism and seek to define the rhetorical situation or Sitz im Leben of the text, specifically the situation in which the reader was to make some response.11 This can be facilitated by identifying the text as deliberative, judicial, or epideictic and then determining the rhetorical problem (objections that the audience may have had against the speaker).12 Next would be an examination of the arrangement of the material, paying attention to the argument and its use of deductive or inductive reasoning.13 Once this is complete then one should look over the entire unit and ask whether it was successful in meeting its rhetorical goal.14

The “New Rhetoric”

A third trajectory is described as the “new rhetoric.” Burton Mack argues that the publication of Chaim Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca’s English translation of The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation15 moved the discipline from seeing rhetoric as simply an analysis of style and aesthetics, to seeing it as argumentation.16 Though this movement is similar to Kennedy’s rhetorical criticism, it emphasizes the social situation behind the text much more than Kennedy’s approach and focuses less on how the text follows Greco-Roman rhetorical forms. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca bring out the fact that the social situation in which the argument was made is an important factor in understanding the persuasive force of an argument.

All language is the language of a community, be this a community bound by biological ties, or by the practice of a common discipline or technique. The terms used, their meanings, their definition, can only be understood in the context of the habits, ways of thought, methods, external circumstances, and traditions known to the users of those terms.17

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca wanted to focus on the audience and the social context as well as the speaker and the speech. This led naturally to examining the rhetoric of a text in hopes of reconstructing the social history behind the text. This approach takes rhetorical criticism out of the context of analysis of style and ornamentation, and into the realm of a social theory of language.18 The reader can trace back each writing to a particular Christian persuasion and its view of authority. Then one can rank the various authorities and evaluate whether or not the use of these authorities has persuasive force.19 This third trajectory comes closest to socio-rhetorical criticism.

Focus on Hebrews

The history of scholarship of rhetorical criticism applied to Hebrews follows the three trajectories mentioned above.

Literary-Aesthetic Studies

Structural Analyses

Perhaps the best examples of the kind of rhetorical approach promoted by Muilenburg applied to the epistle to the Hebrews are the structural analyses of Leon Vaganay, Albert Vanhoye, and Wolfgang Nauck. Though they ended up with different results, they all focused on the literary character of the epistle.

Leon Vaganay’s work is thought to be the beginning of the modern discussion on the structure of Hebrews.20 He was perhaps the first to apply his knowledge of the rhetorical aspects of the book to his structural analysis.21 Perhaps most notable was his identification of “hook” words used to connect sections together.22 His approach led him to a five-part structure, which was thematically chiastic or concentric.

Albert Vanhoye followed Vaganay, but was able to synthesize the work of others as well. He identified the principal techniques used by the author in constructing the epistle: 1) announcement of the topics to be discussed; 2) inclusios, which determine the boundaries of the topics; 3) variation of literary genre (exposition or paraenesis); 4) words, which characterize a development; 5) use of “hook” words; and 6) symmetric arrangement.23 Using these devices he proposed a symmetrically arranged structure, with only minor differences from Vaganay.24

Wolfgang Nauck departed from the Vaganay / Vanhoye outline and revised Otto Michel’s three-part structure as an alternate view.25 He marked the end of the first section of Hebrews as 4:13 in light of the parallel he saw between 1:2b-3 and 4:12-13. He also saw a parallel between 4:14-16 and 10:19-23. Thus he identifies the beginning of the second section as 4:14 and the end as 10:31.26 The final section (10:32-13:17) begins and ends with similar exhortations.27

Semiotic Discourse Approach

Since Muilenburg, many scholars have concentrated simply on the aesthetics of the text, moving away from historical considerations. Andries Snyman in an article entitled, “Hebrews 6:4-6: From a Semiotic Discourse Perspective,”28 focuses on the text rather than the sender, recipient, or its history. The semiotic approach is derived from a structural approach to linguistics, which was one of the many approaches that moved away from a focus on the history of the text to the text itself.29

The basic premise of the approach is that meaningful relations occur not simply between words in a sentence, but also among larger groups—like sentences, pericopes, paragraphs, etc. One must understand these relationships in order to understand the flow of the argument. Three layers of meaning are identified: 1) the declarative, which simply describes the text as it is predicated lexically and semantically;30 2) the structural, which describes the clustering of individual cola into larger units (pericope) based on semantic considerations;31 and 3) the intentional, which describes the purpose or message of the discourse.32

After a brief evaluation of the method, Snyman applies it to Heb 6:4-6, which seems to indicate that it is impossible for apostates to repent and be brought back into the fold of God. On the declarative level the author states very simply, “those who have tasted the heavenly gift, etc., and then abandoned their faith cannot be brought back to repentance again.”33 On the structural level, the statement that his readers are babes in the faith prepares them for the warning in the following section. The author is arguing that his readers should not be reluctant to grow in their faith. Rather, they should seek to know the full significance of Jesus as their high priest. But before the author proceeds to teach them this significance, he warns them of the real danger of apostasy.34 On the intentional level, this passage challenges its audience to right action by eliciting an emotional response. Snyman sees it serving the purpose of the larger message in 5:11-6:20, namely, to call his readers to remain faithful to their faith.35

Rhetorical Criticism

General Studies

There have been several general studies on the book of Hebrews following the pattern of George A. Kennedy. Walter G. Übelacker, for instance, argues that Hebrews is an example of deliberative discourse written to persuade the audience to make a choice. Übelacker divides up the sections of the epistle as follows: 1:1-4 is identified as Prooemium (exordium); 1:5—2:18 is Narratio with Propositio in 2:17-18; 3:1—12:29 is Argumentatio with probatio and refutatio; 13:1-21 is Peroratio; and 13:22-25 is Postscriptum. The literary character of 1:1—13:21 is identified as a “word of encouragement.” 36

Übelacker begins with the idea that the text is a unity, and must be seen as a unity. He argues that from an analysis of the literary character we come to understand the basic thoughts of organization.37 The warning sections in Hebrews are identified as paraklesis just as the author himself calls his work a word of paraklesis (encouragement). Übelacker also distinguishes between direct warnings and indirect warnings. The direct warnings are admonitions and can be categorized as paraenesis. The indirect, however, he describes as “Evaluation” or “Appeal”.38

In another study, Thomas H. Olbricht discusses the rhetorical technique of amplification as it is applied to the epistle to the Hebrews. The term is Aristotle’s and describes a way of fleshing out an argument by demonstrating a person’s value or worth by comparing him with men of notable reputation. Olbricht comments on the structure of Hebrews and then compares its use of amplification with funereal oratory in classical Greece and in the early Christian fathers.39

In his study of funeral sermons, he notes a common pattern and then applies this knowledge to the structure of Hebrews. He finds significant parallels between Hebrews and the eulogies of Isocrates on Evagoras and Gregory Nazianzen on Basil the Great.40 Taking the general categories of funeral discourses, Olbricht identifies three main sections in Hebrews: 1) exordium (1:1-4); 2) encomium (1:5—13:16); and 3) the final exhortation and prayer (13:17-25). Under encomium there are further divisions that speak of: 1) Jesus’ family and birth (1:5—3:13); 2) his endowments, upbringing, and education (3:14—6:12); 3) his life, occupation, achievements, fortune (6:13—10:39); and 4) an ongoing comparison with great men (11:1—13:16).41

Olbricht argues that the author of Hebrews seeks to present Jesus as superior in order to challenge his readers to action and to perseverance. In his analysis of the author’s comparison between Christ and angels, Olbricht notes that the power of the argument resides in the fact that several Old Testament texts are quoted to support the argument.42 Ironically, this is precisely where the use of amplification in Hebrews differs with Greek speeches. In Greek orations the evidence of the superiority is empirically verified. The primary evidence in Hebrews comes from sacred texts. The only empirical evidence offered according to Olbricht is the fact of Christ’s death. 43

In Hebrews 7–10, Christ is compared with Levitical priests and their sacrifices. The superiority of Christ extends beyond that of persons as he is also shown to be superior to the sacrifice itself. Furthermore, the location of the sacrifice is amplified.44 Again the evidence does not come from empirical data or even his own experience, but from Scripture. Since much of the saving work of Christ took place in heaven, there is a lack of empirical earthly evidence. However, the comparison between the earthly and heavenly temple was based both on observation and Scripture.45

One scholar who attempts to utilize the insights of form criticism and rhetorical analysis is Steve Stanley. He has contributed to the on going study of the structure of the epistle to the Hebrews by balancing three important perspectives or considerations in determining structure: literary genre, rhetorical character, and content.46

Stanley argues that the literary genre of the epistle is fundamentally a homily. He bases this insight mainly from the epistle’s self-identification as a “word of exhortation” (13:22). Stanley cites Lawrence Wills’ study, which attempts to establish the “word of exhortation” as a sermonic form in early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism.47 Wills first notes the use of the phrase in Acts 13:15, where Paul speaks during a synagogue service. He identifies three sections to the exhortation that Paul gives in the subsequent verses: 1) authoritative examples (exempla); 2) a conclusion based on the authoritative exempla; and 3) an exhortation. This forms the general pattern for all “words of exhortation.”48 Wills then examines several other early Christian and Hellenistic Jewish sermons also finding this same pattern.49 He argues that the “word of exhortation” does not follow classical Greco-Roman forms, but comes from innovations of Greek oratory in the fifth century BC.50 The identification of Hebrews as a homily has obvious benefits in determining its structure.51

The second perspective that he considers is the rhetorical character of Hebrews. Stanley cites Vanhoye’s work in identifying several important literary markers in determining structure, but argues that there is still a great deal of subjectivity in demarcating the precise divisions.

It is for this reason that the third perspective or content of the epistle is also important to keep in mind. If a particular structure is at odds with the content of the epistle itself, then it must be reevaluated.52 The structure should be seen as a servant of the content. Stanley distinguishes between the doctrinal sections, which mainly deal with the superiority of Christ and all that he brings, and the paraenetic sections, which demand fidelity to Christ and the Christian community.53 In coordinating these two sections, he argues that the message of Hebrews is “Christ’s priestly ministry demands fidelity to the new relationship with God that he mediates.”54 With all three of these perspectives in mind, Stanley then outlines his structure of Hebrews.55

C. F. Evans argues that though most people recognize that the letter to the Hebrews uses Greco-Roman forms of rhetoric, they tend to discount the importance of the form in influencing the actual content of the speech. 56 His short study is devoted to examining how the form of the speech (rhetoric) is related to its content. He first notes the extensive use by the author of synkrisis, which he identifies as a branch of the encomiastic tradition that focused on praising those who were excellent. The way praise or blame is given is by way of comparison. Sometimes it is a comparison of opposites, but more often it is a comparison of similar things.57 Evans discusses the specific uses of this technique in highlighting the superiority of Christ’s revelation, priesthood, sacrifice, etc.

Evans also discusses Christology. He notes that the author uses synkrisis to demonstrate that Jesus is the eschatological Messiah. Thus the types that prefigured Jesus are replaced and demoted when compared to Jesus (i.e., he is like Moses in faithfulness, but is superior to him as Son).58 It is this use of synkrisis that leads Evans to believe that the Christology of Hebrews is properly identified as a divine-hero Christology.59

Studies on Specific Passages

Several other studies on specific texts have emerged using rhetorical criticism. One study on Heb 2:10 examines the use of pre/pein and rhetorical propriety.60 Alan Mitchell argues that the author of Hebrews was influenced by the idea of propriety in rhetoric when he wrote that it was appropriate for God to perfect Jesus through suffering. The rhetorical concept of to\ pre/pon is concerned with both what is appropriate for the speaker and the audience. Therefore by using this concept one is able to analyze the appropriateness of God perfecting his Son as well as the appropriateness of the act for the needs of the audience.61 He notes that propriety in Greek rhetoric involves the proper use of ethos, pathos, and logos to persuade one’s audience.62

The use of pre/pein in Heb 2:10 follows a pattern in classical Greek.63 Mitchell identifies God as the persuasive speaker in Christ. He is described throughout the epistle as one who seeks to bring men into salvation, despite the hardened response of previous generations. His steadfast communication to his people is a reflection of his character. “And so what makes God’s part in Jesus’ suffering both fitting and persuasive is how it discloses the character of God (h1qoj) and appeals to human emotions (pa/qoj) when highlighting the continual divine initiative.”64 Mitchell also surveys other passages describing how the author highlights God’s ethos in order to appeal to the pathos of the audience. He concludes by stating that this rhetorical concept of propriety illumines God’s constant effort to communicate to human beings, culminating in the suffering and death of Jesus. This is important in helping the author win back those who were questioning the value of Jesus’ death.65

In another study, David Worley assumes the author of Hebrews was influenced by rhetorical training in human litigant oaths. Most commentators have understood the two immutable things in Heb 6:12-20 as God’s oath and God’s promises. He argues that the author was in fact thinking of God’s oath-taking and oath-witness. Worley compares the rhetoric of Greek orators, who “colored and maximized”66 oaths sworn by litigants in the courtroom with the rhetoric of Heb 6:12-20. In the Greek court system one litigant could challenge his opponent to take an oath or swear to his god that his words were true. If the other agreed and made an oath, then the matter was settled. Yet more often the case, someone offered to voluntarily take an oath to validate his own claims. This was commonly described as “fleeing to the oath.”67

In the process of giving oaths, lawyers were trained to color the oath either as fraudulent (minimize) or credible (maximize). They would minimize the oath by arguing that the person issuing the oath was a liar or a man of ill-reputation. In order to maximize an oath the lawyer would describe the man’s integrity and character.68 Worley then notes the similarities between the oath language in Hebrews and the rhetoric of the Greek courtroom. “God swore by no one greater. . . . For men swear by a greater and the oath brings a final settlement to every human dispute. . . . He became a witness to the oath . . . it is impossible for God to lie we who have fled [to God’s oath] . . . .”69 The author’s familiarity with the litigant oath seems to be in the background of this language. Worley points out that the author maximizes the oath given by God in a way a Greek lawyer might for his client. Yet there is certainly an adaptation of the rhetoric considering God is the one making the oath.70

One would expect the author to continue to discuss the character of God as trustworthy, but rather he highlights the willingness of God to act as oath-witness. This is how Worley translates the phrase e0mesi/teusen o3rkw, “God acts as a mesi/thj, i.e., as a witness who thereby guarantees [the oath].”71 The language of “God not being able to lie” also maximizes the oath (6:18). Thus Worley argues that the two immutable things the author has in mind are God’s dependability in keeping his promissory oath and his unwavering testimony to his own oath taking.72 The author’s choice of words describing those “who have fled” refers to those who flee to God’s oath for assurance and encouragement. Unlike in litigant cases, where the person flees to his own oath, the readers of this epistle have a better hope in fleeing to God’s oath.73

Michael Cosby examines the rhetorical techniques used in Hebrews 11 to persuade the readers to a certain action. He puts a great deal of emphasis on how the text was heard by the audience.74 Cosby begins by noting that Greek writing was typically written to be heard. So that even for individual use, texts were read aloud.75 He then discusses the form of Hebrews 11 surveying several different opinions by various scholars. After his own examination of several ancient example lists, he concludes that it is still debatable whether the author used a particular literary form or a Jewish source in composing chapter 11.76

Cosby continues his examination of Hebrews 11 by pointing out the anaphoric77 use of pi/stei in 11:3-31. He argues that the reason why the author chose this technique was to communicate that many more examples could be used if space and time permitted. This is accomplished by creating a sort of rhythm of expression.78 He adds that faith is presented as the motivation for the great deeds of the saints in the past.79

The author of Hebrews uses asyndeton80 to highlight the idea that time is limited (11:32-34). The lists that are employed refrain from using conjunctions, which speed up the movement of the text and demonstrate vigor or passion.81 Cosby points out that there is a staccato pattern that is very effective in penetrating one’s mind with so many (it seems) examples of people who have exercised this kind of faith.82 The list as it is read affects the emotions of the hearer and attempts to bring about bravery and courage in the times of suffering.83

Another technique in these lists is that of antithesis, in which two contradictory statements or options are placed side by side. The intent is to compare the hero’s action with the potential action of the contemporary reader. Thus Moses despised the pleasures of Egypt to suffer with his people Israel.84 This is a very powerful technique to encourage certain actions. Cosby also notes the minor uses of hyperbole, paronomasia, and circumlocution, which enhance and strengthen the other more important techniques.85

Following Cosby’s general argument that there is probably not one “example list” literary form, Gareth Lee Cockerill focuses more on how the author arranged his example list in Hebrews 11 to serve his own rhetorical purpose.86 He argues that v. 35 is key to the examples of faith contained in vv. 32-38, which he identifies as the climactic passage of the chapter.87 Cockerill identifies the list of examples in vv. 33-35a as describing those who have triumphed in faith. This is balanced by the list in 35b-38, which describes those who have suffered. Verse 35 is the turning point “where those who were raised from the dead are compared to those who braved death by the power of faith in the ‘better resurrection.’”88

Cockerill identifies Abel and Enoch as the prototypical examples of faith. Abel faced suffering and death because he had faith in a better resurrection and Enoch escaped death by being translated into heaven.89 Verse 28 is a transitional verse separating the lives of those who suffered in faith with those who triumphed in faith. Verses 8-27 describe those who have faced persecution and suffering, while verses 28-35a describes those who have triumphed (usually militarily) by faith.90 Verse 39 concludes the section by mentioning that though these heroes died in faith, they did not receive what had been promised. Thus Cockerill states that they all anticipated the “better resurrection.” His analysis serves to answer the larger question whether the author of Hebrews was concerned with the resurrection. He concludes that though the resurrection was not primary in the Christology of Hebrews, it was used as a strong motivation to encourage perseverance for those who were suffering in this life.91

The “New Rhetoric”

There have also been studies on Hebrews that focus on the rhetoric in Hebrews as argument. The analysis does not focus so much on the author’s use of Greco-Roman rhetorical forms but on identifying the social situation behind the text by examining the argument in Hebrews. Most of these studies have focused on particular passages in Hebrews.

Peter Enns examines how the author of Hebrews recontextualized Psalm 95 to address the specific needs of his audience. In his article, “Interpretation of Psalm 95 in Hebrews 3.1-4.13,”92 he notes that the author does not use Psalm 95 as a proof text to support previous statements, but simply exposits and applies it to his situation. He believes that the author wants his audience to see themselves as those who are figuratively in the wilderness.93

Enns begins by noting the important emendations the author makes when quoting the LXX. The author inserts the conjunction dio/v in v. 10, essentially changing the meaning of the phrase from, “Where your fathers tested, they tried, and saw my works. I was angry with that generation for forty years” to “Your fathers tested with scrutiny and saw my works for forty years. Therefore, [dio/v] I was angry with this generation.”94 The point of the change is to highlight the fact that the wilderness episode was not to be seen in a negative light. God was not angry with them for the forty years they were in the wilderness, but he was angry after their disobedience. The author wants to paint the wilderness time period positively, because he sees the church currently in the wilderness, so to speak. Therefore by identifying the wilderness time period positively, he also affirms that the current time of his audience is a time of blessing.95

One obvious problem with Enns’s analysis is the fact that 3:17 clearly describes God being angry with the wilderness community for forty years. Enns believes this highlights the contrast between the New Testament community and the Old. The Old Testament community suffered under God’s anger, but the New Testament community experienced God’s wonders or works.96 Yet it seems reasonable that quoting the LXX as it was originally written could have made this same contrast. Why would the author of Hebrews intentionally misquote the “word of God,” to make one theological point, and then contradict it in his own analysis?

Also focusing on use of Old Testament Scripture in Hebrews, Karen Jobes uses new rhetorical analysis to help explain the variant quotation of Psalm 40 in Heb 10:5-7.97 Instead of hypothesizing that the author quoted a corrupted text, Jobes argues that the author purposefully misquoted the Psalm for his own rhetorical purposes.98 She notes in a detailed analysis that the variant changes produce phonetic assonance with other words in the quotation, which is the rhetorical technique of paronomasia.99 This particular technique functioned to bring attention to specific elements of the argument.100 Perhaps the most important variation is the change from “ears” to “body” in verse 5. In contrast to the many burnt offerings, God has prepared a body for Jesus as the once-for-all sacrifice. The assonance produced by this change eloquently embellishes the argument creating a catchy tune easy to remember.101 Thus the author of Hebrews alters the text of Psalm 40 in order to show the discontinuity with the past and to persuade his hearers that in these last days God spoke to them in his Son.102

In a short article entitled, “The Use of Antithesis in Hebrews 8–10,”103 Harold Attridge demonstrates the rhetorical mastery of the author of Hebrews. Attridge first describes the social context of the epistle as one in which Christians were often ambivalent toward their Jewish past.104 He then identifies several antitheses used in chapters 8-10: opposition of flesh and spirit, earth and heaven, many and one, old and new, and external and internal.105 Attridge argues that the sacrifice of Christ, which combines many of these antitheses, is uniquely qualified to inaugurate the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31.106 In the climactic section (10:1-10), the Christ utters Psalm 40:7-9 (6-8 MT) as he comes into the world (10:5). A fleshly body is prepared for the divine Son. Thus in Jesus the heavenly/ earthly antithesis is brought together (10:5). How then can the believer receive internal cleansing and spiritual renewal from external rituals? It is by faith in Jesus, who conformed to the will of God, that one is sanctified and overcomes the internal/ external antithesis. Attridge concludes that the author of Hebrews uses exegetical rhetoric to resolve antithetical oppositions and suggests that perhaps this type of rhetoric helped Christians who were ambivalent to their Jewish past. 107

One scholar who attempts to weave aspects of the three major approaches mentioned above (literary aesthetic, rhetorical criticism, “new rhetoric”) in his analysis of the structure of Hebrews is George Guthrie. After a lengthy survey of the history of scholarship on the subject, he suggests that a text-linguistic analysis incorporates the concerns of the new rhetorical criticism, rhetorical criticism, and literary analysis. He also notes that one must take into account the unique literary conventions of the first century.108

In his analysis Guthrie focuses on cohesion shifts, where the unity of a text changes. These shifts are marked off by changes in genre, topic, conjunction, logical relationships, consistency of grammar, verb tense, person and number, lexical repetition, and consistency of temporal and spatial indicators. By examining these shifts, one is able to identify new units and sub-units.109 Guthrie also uses the rhetorical convention of inclusio in determining structure.110 Finally, he argues that the two genres of exposition and hortatory material each share the same goal in calling the hearers to endure. “The expositional material builds toward the goal by focusing on the appointed high priest as a superior basis for endurance. The hortatory passages move toward the goal by reiteration of warnings, promises, and examples used to challenge the hearers to endure.”111

Review of Social Scientific Approaches to Hebrews

General Trends

Bruce J. Malina identifies John H. Elliot as the one who coined the term social-scientific criticism in 1993.112 Originally it was called sociological criticism, but was changed because of the different meanings of “sociological” in the United States and Europe. Malina also notes that sociological studies of the New Testament are mainly social descriptions and social history.113 The term, “social-scientific criticism,” however, is more general and includes all types of social sciences applied to New Testament interpretation.

The goal of social scientific criticism is to find out what an initial audience understood when a speech was given or a document was read aloud.114 The approach used to achieve the goal is to examine the social systems, which reveal meaning in a given social interaction. These social interactions are presumed in the writing and reading of the New Testament documents. Malina presupposes that meaning is rooted in one’s “enculturation, socialization, interrelationships and interactions.”115 Elliott comments, “Sociological exegesis asks not only what a text said ‘then and there’ but also how and why that text was designed to function, and what its impact upon the life and activity of its recipients and formulators was intended to be.”116

Dale Martin identifies two major trends in the social scientific criticism movement.117 One movement is characterized by those who seek to use traditional historical-critical methods to investigate the “social world” of early Christianity.118 This is what Malina referred to as sociological criticism above, which focused primarily on creating “social histories.” The other movement is characterized by those who seek to use sociological or anthropological models to explain the historical texts.119 Martin admits, however, that these are not two absolutely distinct movements, using completely different methods.

One example of a study seeking to identify the social history behind New Testament writings is the article by Wayne Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism.”120 Meeks examines the gospel of John using concepts of sectarianism taken from the “sociology of knowledge” theories of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann.121 In his article, Meeks argues that Jesus is portrayed as one rejected by his own people to reflect the social conflict between the Johannine community and the synagogue. Meeks claims that one of the primary functions of the gospel is to legitimize and solidify the community’s identity, which was likely isolated from the larger society and attacked by it.122

An example of a social-scientific approach that seeks to use a particular model in analyzing texts comes from the work of Bruce Malina. His particular approach in reading texts is what he calls the scenario model. In this model he assumes that language is used to communicate meaning to another, or “a realization of meanings in a social system.”123 In essence he seeks to “develop a set of scenarios that fit the social system realized in the language of the Bible.”124 He identifies rhetorical criticism as one tool used to detect these scenarios. Malina speaks of persuasion as a major goal of the New Testament authors. Most of their persuasive work attempts to keep the readers from being persuaded by others or to establish behavior patterns which were previously unknown.125

To illustrate how this model is applied, we shall look at Malina’s discussion on the clean and unclean or sacred and profane distinction in the ancient world.126 He argues that social lines are needed to determine what is set-apart and what is common. For Malina, “purity” is “about the general cultural map of social time and space, about arrangements within the space thus defined, and especially about the boundaries separating the inside from the outside.”127 He sees the sacred and profane as subsets of purity rules determining what is included and what is excluded. The process of restoring things to their proper order can be described as purifying or cleansing.128

Malina also mentions the fact that purity rules are to bring about prosperity in a society. Those who violate these rules, however, only bring about danger to themselves and to others.129 Malina argues that in the first-century world the main goal was to maintain one’s inherited position in society. One’s position was directly connected to his prosperity and his harmonious relationship with others. Thus it was very important how others viewed a person.130 The purity laws were there to help foster these harmonious relationships. For example, sacrifices functioned not so much for God, but for the people to maintain their right standing before God. They needed his affirmation and evaluation of their worth and value.131

Malina notes that Jesus seems to reject many of the Jewish purity rituals: touching, cleansing, interacting with things and people impure and acting on sacred days. He argues, however, that Jesus accepts the general system of purity regulations, but questions the social abuse of these rules. The regulations are not to keep people from coming to God, but rather they are to facilitate access to God.132 Paul, on the other hand goes further and declares all things clean in Christ, rejecting both the Jewish and the Greek understanding of holiness, purity, and sacredness. For Christians in the Pauline tradition, the temple was the church gathered. Those who belonged to the community were those in Christ; outsiders were those not in Christ. Purity rituals no longer distinguished who was “in” or “out,” but rather one’s relationship to Christ determined who belonged. In addition, all times were sacred for those on the inside of the community. Thus there was no need to observe days, months, seasons, and years.133

Focus on Hebrews

Social Histories

The social scientific studies on Hebrews can be divided into the two general movements mentioned above. One example of a study that takes more of a “social history” approach is the work of William Lane. Lane offers some insight into the setting of Hebrews from a social perspective.134 He first argues that the epistle has Rome as its setting.135 He then identifies the recipients as a house church of the city, which had its roots in the Jewish Hellenistic synagogue.136

After examining the social dynamics of a Roman household, Lane points out that the church in Hebrews is identified primarily as the household of God, with Jesus as the presider over the house.137 “The extension of protection, the exercise of administrative responsibility, and the provision of supervision and nurture are his [Jesus] responsibility, analogous to the role of the head of the household in Greco-Roman society.”138 Lane argues that the strained relationship between the community addressed and its leaders intimated in 13:17-18 is perhaps one occasion for the use of the household metaphor. By describing the church as a household, the author of Hebrews hopes “to bring the two groups together in a social context of shared cordiality.”139

Lane also suggests that the real tension that emerged came because the current leaders mentioned in 13:17 were not the owners of the houses of the house churches. These owners, as hosts and patrons had a certain social standing and authority over the members. Yet the leadership structures in these house churches were not based on patronage, but “charismatic endowment and service to the congregation.”140 Those who had the gift of preaching within the community emerged as the leaders. Thus he imagines that the implicit tensions were caused by power struggles within the house church movement.141

Craig Koester describes the social history of the community addressed in Hebrews in three phases: 1) proclamation and conversion; 2) persecution and solidarity; and 3) friction and malaise.142 Drawing from clues within the epistle itself, Koester states that the first phase involved Christian evangelists forming the community through preaching and baptism. During this phase, the confession of faith played an important role in uniting its members from different social classes and distinguishing them from those on the outside. Baptism was not a rite of passage as much as a boundary marker identifying who was in and who was out.143 The second phase was characterized by physical hostilities and persecution against the community by non-Christians. Koester sees the reference in 10:32-34 of the members visiting those in prison, losing property, and receiving physical persecution as descriptive of this phase.144 The final phase gave way to a more subtle type of conflict, where Christians were verbally harassed and marginalized in society. There was a general malaise and a tendency to neglect the faith and community meetings. Koester argues that the epistle was written in this third phase of the community’s formation. 145

He also argues that the Christian community fit neither the Jewish subculture nor the Greco-Roman culture and needed to reaffirm its own identity. Koester sees the author of the epistle appropriating and transforming Jewish and Greco-Roman images to reinforce the community’s identity and confession. For example, the author transforms the Jewish idea of priesthood and temple and appropriates these Jewish religious symbols for his own purposes.146 In addition, the unique character of Christ’s sacrifice draws not only from Jewish sacrificial imagery, but also Greco-Roman cultic imagery. Sacrifices were offered at many sanctuaries throughout the Greco-Roman world.147

Social Scientific Studies

In a more specialized study, Harold Attridge interacts with Leo Perdue in determining the social function of the paraenetic sections of Hebrews.148 He does not see the epistle fitting in any of the four functions of hortatory literature as defined by Perdue: protreptic (that which seeks to persuade someone to convert), socialization, legitimation, or conflict.149 It does not seek to convert, because it addresses those who already share common values and religious beliefs. Nor does it socialize its audience into a particular segment of society, giving instructions about social roles or states. However, there is some indication that the epistle may function in legitimizing the Christian community. The references to imitate the community’s leaders (13:7) and to obey them (13:17) seem to legitimate the authority structure of the community. Yet it would be difficult to argue that the whole epistle was written for this particular function. 150 Attridge also admits that the epistle does reflect a situation of conflict (10:32-24; 12:4; and others). But he also argues that this particular function does not account for the epistle as a whole.151

Attridge suggests that the function of the hortatory sections of the epistle is not primarily to engage in polemic, but to confirm the validity of the social world of the community. It is to “reinforce the identity of a social sub-group in such a way as not to isolate it from its environment.”152 The community experiencing suffering is not to separate from the society but to engage it with its values and commitments. This particular function falls somewhere in between Perdue’s categories of legitimation and socialization.153

Following up on Attridge’s suggestion that the epistle may function to legitimize the community, Iutisone Salevao produced a more thorough work on the subject. He argues that the sociological concept of “legitimation” successfully explains the “correlation between theology, situation, and the strategy of the letter [to the Hebrews].”154 He approaches the epistle using sociological exegesis, drawing from the work of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann.155 Salevao describes legitimation as the different ways in which a society is explained and justified to its members. “Employed as a sociological model, legitimation relates to the genesis and maintenance of a society and its social institutions; it explains and justifies the existence and continuation of the social world.”156

Salevao describes the situation behind the epistle to the Hebrews in sociological terms. There were separatist members of the community promoting theological views, which were in direct conflict with the views and practices of the community. Some of these separatists still held on to their former religion of Judaism. Saleveo argues that the community in Hebrews was a sect, which he understands as a clearly defined entity, separate and distinct from Judaism. He then shows how the author uses the doctrine of the impossibility of a second repentance in 6:4-6 to curb the threat of deviation from the norms of the community. In addition the author employed a superiority/inferiority structure, which helped maintain the symbolic universe of the Christian community. Finally Saleveo examines the use of the language of Hebrews as a legitimating tool.157

John Dunnill’s monograph, Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews attempts to use both sociological and structuralist approaches in its examination of the epistle to the Hebrews.158 Dunnill defines the author as the authorial presence within the text and derives his social reconstruction from textual clues.159 He identifies the addressees of the epistle as a small group of churches who are experiencing persecution from the outside and disillusionment from the inside. To encourage them, the author of the epistle uses the rich imagery of household, which Dunnill notes is even more basic than nation, or clan. The author wants to bring his community, which likely felt cut off from its social and religious past and uncertain about its future,160 back to Melchizedek, the ancient priest and king.

Dunnill uses anthropological insights primarily for the sake of comparison. For instance, after citing some anthropological works comparing gift-giving and -receiving and formal trade, he draws the parallel between the old covenant system, which seemed to work more on the basis of trade, and the new system, which is based on the idea of gift giving.161

Similar to the approach of Snyman, Dunnill moves away from traditional historical criticism in his use of structuralism. Yet he goes further than Snyman in seeking to bring out the modern reader’s contribution to meaning.162 He wants to understand the text, “better than the author himself, and better than the first readers too.”163 He substantiates his right to do so by noting that the author of Hebrews himself is claiming to know the Levitical symbols better than the original author or the first readers.

In conclusion, Dunnill writes, “Hebrews claims for itself the image of a liturgy, a symbolic action in the sacred sphere: more particularly, a covenant-renewal rite, of which the book’s words comprise a long prophetic exhortation.”164 Dunnill sees the author of Hebrews drawing from Old Testament cultic symbolism and re-interpreting it in the light of Christ. He argues that the structuralist method helps put the particulars of the letter into a larger system or context, unraveling deeper, more opaque meanings. Dunnill contrasts this with historical methods, which tend to reduce the unusual and ambiguous to conformity.

Socio-Rhetorical Approach

Description of Method

From our survey we have seen attempts from rhetorical critics to use sociological insights and attempts from social scientific critics to use rhetorical criticism. The “new rhetoric” of Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca is keenly sensitive to the social situation that stands behind the text and the work of Bruce Malina demonstrates his dependence on rhetorical criticism. Another scholar who also sees a very close relationship between these two approaches is Vernon Robbins.165 He defines socio-rhetorical criticism as a discipline that combines the use of social-scientific approaches with analysis of how a text uses subjects and topics to communicate thoughts, arguments, speeches, etc. Robbins states, “Thus, socio-rhetorical criticism integrates the ways people use language with the ways they live in the world.”166 He identifies several textures of a text, but notes that not all of the textures have to be explored when using the method. The first texture he mentions is the inner texture, which deals with things like the repetition of words, inclusios, alternation of speech and storytelling, different ways arguments are presented, and the aesthetic feel of the text.167

The second texture is the intertexture, which has to do with life outside the text. Robbins distinguishes several types. Oral-scribal intertexture deals with how language was used in the social context of the time. Social intertexture explores family structures, political arrangements, distribution of goods and services, etc. Cultural intertexture describes how people determine their importance, their responsibility to the world, etc. Historical intertexture is concerned with events that happen outside of the text and are recorded as narrative within the text.168

The “social and cultural” texture deals with sociological and anthropological theory. It asks how the text communicates what the world outside the text is like or at least what it is like from the perspective of the text. It seeks to discern how the text perceives how one should live in the world or how one can change the world.169 Ideological texture deals with how the language of the text aligns itself with or against other groups or persons (i.e. feminist readings). It asks questions about the social location of the author and its recipients.170 This texture is narrower than the social and cultural texture in that it does not simply ask how the text aligns itself with or against other views, but it describes the particular view itself. Finally there is sacred texture, which deals with the unique relationship of humans with the divine.171

David deSilva has done much work using this method.172 In his book entitled, Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews,173 he examines the honor/shame language in Hebrews within the larger honor/shame culture in the Mediterranean world. He first looks at Classical and Hellenistic texts to determine the dominant cultural view of what constituted honor and shame in the ancient world. He then examines the honor and shame language in groups that are counter-cultural or have set themselves apart from the dominant group. The last part of his study involves a detailed analysis of the book of Hebrews, identifying the recipients as a counter-cultural group. They are those who have been rejected from the dominant culture and explore counter-definitions of honorable and shameful behavior. The author of Hebrews appeals to his reader’s sense of honor and shame especially in relation to God and hopes to establish that God’s view of them is more important than society’s view of them.174

In an article entitled, “Hebrews 6:4-8: A Socio-Rhetorical Investigation (Part 1),” deSilva walks through the method outlined by Vernon Robbins and applies it to a specific passage.175 He argues that the rhetorical goal of the epistle is to dissuade those who are drifting away or shrinking back in their Christian commitment.176 The exhortation beginning in 6:1 presents two options before the readers, either press on to maturity or fall away. He notes the repetitive use of participles in the argument describing an unspecified group of people.177 These people are those who have received God’s gifts. The mention of the heavenly gift (6:4) draws deSilva into a lengthy discussion of the social intertexture of patron-client relationships.178 The people are obviously the clients and God is the patron. DeSilva cites Seneca, De beneficiis in describing the reciprocal obligations understood in this relationship. Those who would receive benefits were obligated to repay their benefactors by giving them honor and thereby increase their fame and reputation.179 Those who show contempt to their benefactors were to be punished and barred from future benefits.

DeSilva argues that the readers of the epistle were tempted to value friendship with the world more than God’s patronage. Thus their shrinking back from their Christian commitments would make it impossible for God to renew them to repentance, according to the social order of patron-client relations.180 He draws from both Greek and Jewish sources in identifying the oral-scribal intertexture, which informs the agricultural illustration in 6:7-8. He argues that similar agricultural examples in both Isaiah 5:1-7 and Philo’s De agricultura 9-18 reinforce the idea of fulfilling one’s obligation of reciprocity.181

Evaluation of the Socio-Rhetorical Approach

The socio-rhetorical approach outlined by Vernon Robbins proves to be a valuable tool in approaching the New Testament texts from a variety of perspectives. Its interweaving of disciplines produces a richer, thicker understanding of the text. Nevertheless, one must discuss its limitations and weaknesses.

R. Alan Culpepper affirms much of what Robbins says regarding the inner texture but rightly adds that it should also include analysis of the narrator, plot, characters, settings, and other aspects of the narrative or discourse.182 This refinement of the inner texture should produce studies that better balance insights from rhetorical criticism with insights from new literary criticism. Culpepper also notes that under intertexture, Robbins fails to include any analysis of the text’s genre.183 Certainly genre analysis will greatly assist in the understanding of a text and should be considered.

Under the category of “social and cultural” texture, one is to make use of social scientific methods. Stephen Barton enumerates some potential weaknesses of social scientific approaches: 1) they may anachronistically apply modern Western models and theories to an ancient settings without taking into account the differences in cultures; 2) they run the risk of explaining away true religious experience by describing actions and behaviors exclusively in sociological terms; 3) they have their roots in the atheistic philosophy of the Enlightenment.184 Certainly the use of these sociological models should be sensitive to the culture and context of the time.

In Robbins’ section on ideological texture we are to examine our own social and cultural location as well as the writer’s. Certainly this particular texture is important for the purposes of this dissertation, yet it also poses the greatest challenge. There is the very obvious issue of subjectivity in exploring this texture. Are all ideological readings of equal merit, or are some readings unacceptable? Some controls or boundaries in determining acceptable ideological readings are needed. The approach in this dissertation will be to use the insights from the other textures as a general guide in exploring the ideological texture. Ideological readings should be grounded upon solid inner texture and intertextural research. Finally, Robbins’ section on sacred texture is vague and without sufficient example and illustration. Nevertheless, this approach will be extremely helpful in adding new insights to the questions posed by this dissertation.

1 These passages represent the most radical statements against Judaism in the epistle to the Hebrews. Though there are other passages that might also indicate anti-Semitic, anti-Judaic, or supersessionist statements (cf. 3:3; 9:8-10; 13:10), they are not as radical or clearly identified as speaking against Judaism.

2 Vernon K. Robbins, Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity, 1996) 1.

3 Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969).

4 Burton L. Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament, GBS (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 12.

5 Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament, 12.

6 Amos N. Wilder, Early Christian Rhetoric: The Language of the Gospel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964) 25–26.

7 George Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984) 3. Kennedy draws many of his rhetorical categories from Aristotle’s Rhetoric. He also notes Cicero’s works On Invention and Partitions of Oratory, and Quintilian’s work, On the Education of the Orator. See Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 12–13.

8 Some identify Hans Dieter Betz’s work, “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” NTS 21 (1975) 353–79 as the beginning of a new era in New Testament scholarship. Cf. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). See Carl Joachim Classen, Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament, WUNT 128 (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2000) 1–2.

9 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 5. Kennedy has come under recent criticism for his assertion that the New Testament writings primarily follow Greco-Roman rhetorical forms. Roland Meynet argues that the New Testament writings more appropriately follow Jewish rhetorical forms; Meynet, Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric, JSOTSS 256 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 21–22. Meynet distinguishes Hebrew rhetoric from Greco-Roman rhetoric in three ways: 1) Jewish rhetoric is more concrete than abstract; 2) it uses parataxis more than hypotaxis; and 3) it is more involutive than linear (173–75). Kennedy defends the idea that we can look at the New Testament using Greek rhetorical categories, even though it was written in-between two cultures. He bases his premise on the widespread Hellenization of the Near East and points to the works of Josephus and Philo as examples. Kennedy also makes a lengthy argument that Jesus and Paul were at least acquainted with Greek rhetoric if not formally trained. Thus he argues that it is historically and philosophically legitimate to use classical Greek rhetoric in analyzing the New Testament. He does note, however, that one must be aware of other influences, such as the Jewish chiasmus, in the unique rhetoric of the New Testament (Kennedy, 8–12). Whether one defines the New Testament as uniquely Hebraic with some parallel to Greco-Roman forms or primarily Greco-Roman with some Jewish influence seems to depend on the specific New Testament writing. Instead of thinking in binary terms of either Hellenistic or Jewish, it may be better to view each writing on a continuous spectrum between these two extremes.

10 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 34.

11 Ibid., 35.

12 Ibid., 36.

13 Ibid., 37.

14 Ibid., 38.

15 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric.

16 Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament, 14.

17 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 513.

18 Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament, 15–16. See also C. Clifton Black, “Rhetorical Criticism,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, ed. Joel Green (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 263–64.

19 Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament, 23–24. Mack notes the highly polemical nature of Christian rhetoric, which makes ample use of comparison and contrast with the surrounding culture in defining itself. He argues that this type of rhetoric often presents a straw man in the polemic and creates “inauthentic discourse.” Thus much of the New Testament shows the Christian perspective as superior, or paints the opponents unfairly or inadequately (96).

20 George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, NovTSup 73 (Leiden: Brill, 1994; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 11–12.

21 Though Vaganay’s work preceded Muilenburg’s 1968 address, Muilenburg is still heralded as the one who initiated the major shift in New Testament scholarship toward rhetorical criticism.

22 Leon Vaganay, “Le Plan de L’Épître aux Hébreux,” in Mémorial Lagrange, ed. L.-H. Vincent (Paris: Gabalda, 1940) 271–72.

23 Albert Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews, trans. James Swetnam, Subsidia Biblica 12 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1989) 20.

24 Ibid., 40a-b.

25 Wolfgang Nauck, “Zum Aufbau des Hebräerbriefes,” in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias, ed. Walther Eltester, BZNW 26 (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960) 199–206.

26 Otto Michel ended the second section at 10:18. See Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer, 13th ed., KEK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 29–35.

27 Nauck, “Zum Aufbau des Hebräerbriefes,” 200–203.

28 Andries H. Snyman, “Hebrews 6:4-6: From a Semiotic Discourse Perspective,” in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffery T. Reed, JSNTSS 170 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 354–68.

29 Ibid., 354.

30 Ibid., 356.

31 Ibid., 357.

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid., 365.

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid., 367.

36 Walter Übelacker, Der Hebräerbrief als Appell (Stockhom: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989) 224.

37 Ibid., 17.

38 Ibid., 32.

39 Thomas H. Olbricht, “Hebrews as Amplification,” in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, JSNTSS 90 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 375.

40 Ibid., 378.

41 Ibid. Olbricht notes the use of amplification in comparing Christ to a whole series of heroes. This practice, which typically occurred at the end of an exhortation, was found in both classical Greek eulogies and the eulogies of the early church fathers. Olbricht argues that the comparison in Hebrews 11 was not so much to show the superiority of Christ over these men, but rather the superior position of the contemporary believers over the heroes of the past. Because the contemporary believers were able to focus on Jesus, they were superior to those in the past who did not receive the promises but looked only to shadows and types. See ibid., 386–87.

42 Ibid., 382.

43 Ibid., 383. Though Greek sermons did not use Scripture as evidence, the eulogies of the early church fathers often did. See for example, Gregory Nazianzen’s Panegyric on S. Basil (NPNF2 7:395–422).

44 Olbricht, “Hebrews as Amplification,” 384.

45 Ibid., 385.

46 Steve Stanley, “The Structure of Hebrews from Three Perspectives,” TynBul 45 (1994) 245–71.

47 Ibid., 248. See Lawrence Wills, “The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity,” HTR 77 (1984) 277–99.

48 Ibid., 279.

49 Wills examines Hebrews, 1 Clement, Peter’s sermon in Solomon’s Portico (Acts 3:12-26), Peter’s Pentecost sermon (2:14-40), Paul’s speech on the Areopagus (17:24-27), Paul’s speech at Miletus to the elders of the church at Ephesus (20:17-35), 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, 1 Corinthians 10:1-14, the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, and others. He also looks at Jewish sources and finds this pattern in Jeremiah 7:1-8:3, Ezekiel 20, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Jewish War, and others (ibid., 278–96).

50 Ibid., 296–97. C. Clifton Black II responds to Wills’ work by arguing that the word of exhortation form does indeed follow the classical conventions of Greco-Roman rhetoric. He argues that Wills’ understanding of classical forms and structures is overly restrictive; Black, “The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills,” HTR 81 (1988) 1–17, esp. 4–11.

51 Stanley understands this particular homily to be an exposition of Psalm 110, which he finds in all the major sections of the book. This clue also aids him in his structural analysis (Stanley “The Structure of Hebrews,” 253–54).

52 Ibid., 256. See also James Swetnam, “Form and Content of Hebrew 1–6,” Bib 53 (1972) 268–85.

53 Stanley, “The Structure of Hebrews,” 262–63.

54 Ibid., 263.

55 For the actual structure, see ibid., 270–71.

56 C. F. Evans, The Theology of Rhetoric: The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Dr. Williams Trust, 1988) 3.

57 Ibid., 5–6.

58 Ibid., 17.

59 Ibid., 18.

60 Alan C. Mitchell, “The Use of pre/pein and Rhetorical Propriety in Hebrews 2:10,” CBQ 54 (1992) 681–701.

61 Ibid., 682–83.

62 Craig Koester also analyzes Hebrews’ rhetorical effectiveness using these categories. He examines the logic of the argument, the emotional appeal to persuade, and the character of God as the author. See Craig R. Koester, The Epistle to the Hebrews, AB 36 (New York: Doubleday, 2001) 87–92.

63 Mitchell, “The Use of pre/pein,” 688.

64 Ibid., 694.

65 Ibid., 701.

66 David R. Worley, “Fleeing to Two Immutable Things: God’s Oath Taking and Oath Witnessing,” ResQ 36 (1994) 223.

67 Ibid., 224.

68 Ibid., 224–5.

69 Ibid., 225.

70 Ibid., 226.

71 Ibid., 227.

72 Ibid.

73 Ibid., 228.

74 Michael R. Cosby, The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11: In Light of Example Lists in Antiquity (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1988) 5. See also idem, “The Rhetorical Composition of Hebrews 11,” JBL 107 (1988) 257–73.

75 Cosby, Rhetorical Composition, 6.

76 Ibid., 12.

77 This refers to the repetition of the same element at the beginning of several successive sections.

78 Cosby, Rhetorical Composition, 42.

79 Ibid., 48.

80 This refers to the omission of conjunctions.

81 Cosby, Rhetorical Composition, 59–60.

82 Ibid., 63.

83 Ibid., 65.

84 Ibid., 75–76.

85 Ibid., 84.

86 G. L. Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection: Heb 11:35,” TynBul 51 (2000) 215–34. See also Alan D. Bulley, “Death and Rhetoric in the Hebrews ‘Hymn of Faith,” SR 25 (1996) 409–23. Bulley argues that Heb 11:1-40 is an example of epideictic rhetoric, praising the elders of the church with the deliberative goal of exhorting faithfulness in the midst of suffering and death (410).

87 Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection,” 220.

88 Ibid., 222.

89 Ibid., 224.

90 Ibid., 231–32.

91 Ibid., 234.

92 Peter Enns, “Interpretation of Psalm 95 in Hebrews 3.1—4.13,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, ed. Craig Evans and James Sanders, JSNTSS 148 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 352–63.

93 Ibid., 352–53.

94 Ibid., 353.

95 Ibid., 354.

96 Ibid., 355. Enns also examines the author’s emendation of e0doki/masen in the LXX to e0n dokimasi/a in v. 9. The LXX reading would be, “Your fathers tested, they tried my works.” But in Hebrews we have, “Your fathers tested with scrutiny my works.” This distinction paints the wilderness generation in a more negative light. See ibid., 356.

97 Karen H. Jobes, “The Function of Paronomasia in Hebrews 10:5-7,” TJ 13 (1992) 181–91; and idem, “Rhetorical Achievement in the Hebrews 10 ‘Misquote’ of Psalm 40,” Bib 72 (1991) 387–96.

98 Jobes, “Rhetorical Achievement,” 389. There are four variations of the text of Hebrews compared to the LXX: 1) sw~ma is found in verse 5 instead of w0ti/a; 2) o9lokautw/mata is substituted in verse 6 for the singular form o9lokau/twma; 3) eu0do/khsav is substituted for h1thsav in verse 6; and 4) o9 qeo/v and to\ qelhma/ sou are transposed in verse 7 and the remainder of the verse is omitted (Jobes, “Function of Paronomasia,” 182–3).

99 Jobes, “The Function of Paronomasia,” 184.

100 Ibid., 185.

101 Ibid., 189.

102 Ibid., 191.

103 Harold W. Attridge, “The Uses of Antithesis in Hebrews 8–10,” HTR 79 (1986) 1–9.

104 Ibid., 1.

105 Ibid., 5.

106 Ibid.

107 Ibid., 8–9.

108 George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, NovTSup 73 (Leiden: Brill, 1994; Biblical Studies Library; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 45.

109 Ibid., 54.

110 Ibid., 76–89.

111 Ibid., 146.

112 Bruce J. Malina, “Rhetorical Criticism and Social-Scientific Criticism: Why Won’t Romanticism Leave Us Alone?” in Rhetoric Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, JSNTSS 131 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 73. Cf. John H. Elliott, What Is Social-Scientific Criticism? GBS (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).

113 Malina, “Rhetorical Criticism and Social-Scientific Criticism,” 73–4.

114 Ibid., 74.

115 Ibid., 75.

116 John H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 7–8.

117 Dale Martin, “Social-Scientific Criticism,” in To Each its Own Meaning, ed. Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993) 103–20.

118 Ibid., 107. Martin identifies John G. Gager, Wayne A. Meeks, L. William Countryman, and Howard Clark Kee as “social historians.”

119 Martin, “Social-Scientific Criticism,” 107. Martin identifies John H. Elliott, Jerome H. Neyrey, Bruce J. Malina, Antoinette Clark Wire as “social scientists”.

120 Wayne Meeks, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” JBL 91 (1972) 44–72.

121 See Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966).

122 Meeks, “The Man from Heaven,” 70.

123 Malina, “Rhetorical Criticism and Social-Scientific Criticism,” 81.

124 Ibid.

125 Ibid., 82.

126 Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, 3d ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 161–97.

127 Ibid., 164.

128 Ibid., 165.

129 Ibid., 170.

130 Malina distinguishes between the dyadic personality and the individual personality. The dyadic personality describes someone who perceives himself or herself in terms of how others see him or her. He or she needs others to know and define who he or she is. The individual personality describes someone who sees others as distinct and unique and forms his or her own definition of self. Malina argues that the individual personality was quite foreign to the ancient world, which was dominated by the dyadic personality; ibid., 62–63.

131 Ibid., 185–86.

132 Ibid., 188.

133 Ibid., 191–96.

134 William Lane, “Social Perspective on Roman Christianity During the Formative Years from Nero to Nerva: Romans, Hebrews, 1 Clement,” in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 196–244.

135 Lane’s argument for Rome as the location of Hebrews is as follows: 1) The generosity of those addressed in Hebrews is consistent with an affluent Roman church (Heb 6:10-11; 10:33-34, cf. Ignatius, Romans, Dionysius of Corinth, Eusebius, Church History 4.23.10); 2) the description of sufferings is consistent with the edict of Claudius in Rome in 49 AD; and 3) the leadership identified as h3goumenoi in the epistle is consistent with the community of Rome (Heb 13:7, 17, 24); ibid., 215.

136 Ibid., 216.

137 Ibid., 218.

138 Ibid.

139 Ibid., 222.

140 Ibid., 224.

141 Ibid., 223.

142 Koester, Hebrews, 64–72.

143 Ibid., 66–67.

144 Ibid., 67.

145 Ibid., 71–72.

146 Ibid., 77.

147 Ibid., 79.

148 Harold W. Attridge, “Paraenesis in a Homily (lo/goj paraklh/sewj): The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews,’” Semeia 50 (1990) 211–26.

149 Leo G. Perdue, “The Social Character of Paraenesis and Paraenetic Literature,” Semeia 50 (1990) 5–39, esp. 23–26.

150 Attridge, “Paraenesis,” 218.

151 Ibid., 219–20.

152 Ibid., 223.

153 Perdue, “Social Character,” 25–26.

154 Iutisone Salevao, Legitimation in the Letter to the Hebrews, JSNTSS 219 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002) 5.

155 Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966).

156 Salevao, Legitimation, 6, 53–54.

157 Ibid., 70–71.

158 John Dunnill, Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews, SNTSMS 75 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1992).

159 Ibid., 14.

160 Ibid., 37–39.

161 Ibid., 243–44.

162 Ibid., 9.

163 Ibid., 116.

164 Ibid., 261.

165 See Vernon K. Robbins, Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity, 1996) and The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society, and Ideology (London: Routledge, 1996). Hens-Piazza proposes a slightly different socio-rhetorical approach applied mainly to Old Testament texts. See Gina Hens-Piazza, Of Methods, Monarchs, and Meanings: A Sociorhetorical Approach to Exegesis, SOTI 3 (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1996).

166 Robbins, Exploring, 1.

167 Ibid., 3.

168 Ibid., 3, 40–70.

169 Ibid., 71.

170 Robbins identifies cultural categories that help identify one’s cultural location (the manner which one presents one’s propositions, arguments, and reasons to oneself and others): 1) dominant culture rhetoric (these are norms, values, and attitudes presupposed in the social structure); 2) subculture rhetoric (imitates the norms and values of the dominant culture but claims to support them better than the dominant culture); 3) counterculture rhetoric (rejects the dominant subculture and responds to it); and 4) contraculture rhetoric (a short lived response to the dominant culture that does not formulate its response from a set of values, but just reacts negatively to certain dominant values or norms) (ibid., 86–87).

171 Ibid., 4.

172 See David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).

173 David A. deSilva, Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews, SBLDS 152 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995).

174 Ibid., 23–27.

175 David Arthur deSilva, “Heb 6:4-8: A Socio-Rhetorical Investigation (Part 1),” TynBul 50 (1999) 33–57. Part II is TynBul 50 (1999) 225–36 and describes the ideology promoted in the passage and how it serves the author’s rhetorical goals. See also deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 219–44.

176 DeSilva, “Heb 6:4-8 (Part 1),” 39–40. De Silva does not see any direct polemic at work in the epistle against the dominant Jewish society. He does not believe there is a threat of reversion back to Judaism. See above chapter 1, pages 15-16.

177 Ibid., 42.

178 Ibid., 45. See also idem, “Exchanging Favor for Wrath: Apostasy,” JBL 115 (1996) 91–116.

179 DeSilva, “Heb 6:4-8 (Part 1),” 45–46. Cf. Seneca, Ben. 2.22.1; 2.24.2.

180 Ibid., 48. Cf. Seneca, Ben. 3.1.1.

181 Ibid., 52–54. De Silva is not arguing that the author of Hebrews used either of these as a direct source.

182 R. Alan Culpepper, “Mapping the Textures of the New Testament Criticism: A Response to Socio-Rhetorical Criticism,” JSNT 70 (1998) 73.

183 Ibid., 74. Robbins responds by arguing that we need to move beyond literary genres to rhetorical genres (different forms of speech); Robbins, “Response,” JSNT 70 (1998) 103. Yet, there seems to be a close connection between literary genre and rhetorical genre. Why should we neglect to consider the literary form of the text for the purpose of exegesis?

184 Stephen C. Barton, “Historical Criticism and Social-Scientific Perspectives in New Testament Study,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, ed. Joel B. Green (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 74–76.