Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SUBMITTED TO DR. PAMELA EISENBAUM IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF BS 3165 N.T. LITERATURE: HEBREWS
Introduction Hebrews 6.4-12, and especially 6.4-6a, has brought significant theological,
soteriological, and interpretive angst upon theologians and laypeople alike. The ink spilt over the passage in regards to its theological significance is impressive, to say the least. While these theological implications will have mammoth consequences for many who interpret this pericope, I have no intention of taking up these repercussions directly.1 I coincide with Harold Attridge in his statement concerning Hebrews 6.4-12, while the rigorous attitude that our author represents lies behind the controversies on the subject of repentance in the early church, he is not addressing systematically the problem of penitential discipline.2 I understand the agenda of the author of Hebrews in this pericope to be distinguished from the theological agenda interpreters often bring to it, and therefore, the direction of this paper will distance itself from these concerns. The course taken here will primarily focus on the hortatory aspects of the
pericope.
It
is
far
from
groundbreaking
work
to
apply
rhetorical
criticism
to
Hebrews
6.4-12;
it
has
been
done
before,
and
will
continue
to
be
done
in
the
future.
However,
because
the
pericope
is
primarily
understood
as
functioning
in
a
hortatory
manner3,
it
is
often
diminished
as
bearing
little
weight
in
the
1
For
the
sake
of
transparency
I
will
disclose
that
I
understand
the
passage
not
to
hold the final theological word on perseverance and I do place significant weight on its rhetorical function, which will become clear as this paper progresses. 2 Harold Attridge, Hebrews (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 167. 3 Some scholars apply slightly nuanced terms which often relate to spoken rhetoric but will dub the sections differently- hortatory and paraenesis are two of the more common. (Harold Attridge, "Paraenesis in a homily (logos paraklses): The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, the "Epistle to the Hebrews." Semeia 50 (1990): 211-226) 1
2 interpretation of Hebrews in its entirety. In this paper I will dispute this understanding in regards to this specific paraenetic section of Hebrews, arguing the thesis that the hortatory and oratorical functions of Hebrews 6.4-12 are indispensable to the function of Hebrews in its entirety, functioning as an emotional motivator for a community that at one point persevered through significant persecution, but has not remained as confident in the midst of lesser maltreatment. The manner in which this paper will go about proving the aforementioned
thesis will be in three large sections, the first of which is further divided into three subsections. In the first section I will do three things: first, I will overview the general attitude and manner in which the hortatory sections of Hebrews are typically interpreted; second, I will justify reading and interpreting Hebrews as an oral performance; third, and finally, I will present the significance and necessity of playing on emotions in rhetorical4 and oratorical discourse. In the second section I will deal explicitly with the text of Hebrews 6.4-12, applying rhetorical criticism to the text and demonstrating the manner in which the text significantly plays on the emotions of the hearer. In the third and final section I will demonstrate the ways in which interpreting this section of Hebrews in such a manner may have bearing on the text in its entirety. Section 1.1: The Structure of Hebrews and Hortatory Asides
While I utilize the term rhetoric and its cognates a number of times throughout this paper I am more concerned with the rhetoric of oratory rather than rhetorical criticism as it is typically understood.
396
are
typically
understood
to
be
functioning
in
some
sort
of
hortatory
manner.
It
would
be
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
argue
that
any
of
these
three
pericopes
are
not
functioning
in
this
way.
However,
many
take
these
hortatory
sections
and
belittle
their
function
in
the
text
as
a
whole,
claiming
them
to
be
second
call[s]
for
attentive
listening7,
deliberate
shifts
for
refocusing
and
refreshment8,
digressions9,
or
respites
from
a
sustained
argument.10
In
doing
this
scholars
fall
into
the
fallacy
that
the
rational,
sustained
argument
is
the
real
point
of
the
text,
which
deserves
exegetical
attention,
and
the
hortatory
sections
merely
function
as
reprieves
from
the
rigors
of
rational
argument.
The
paraenetic
sections
become
a
means
to
an
end;
only
if
the
hearer
gets
a
brief
time-out
from
the
sustained
argument
will
he
or
she
be
able
to
jump
back
into
the
real
argument.
However,
the
evidence
of
the
major
rhetoricians
betrays
this
understanding
of
such
asides.
They
allocate
a
great
deal
of
importance
to
the
elements
that
are
found
in
these
hortatory
sections
of
Hebrews.
Before
returning
to
this,
it
is
necessary
to
make
an
argument
for
the
oral
nature
of
the
text
of
Hebrews,
being
that
the
entire
argument
of
this
paper
will
rest
on
the
assumption
that
Hebrews
did
in
fact
have
an
oratorical
genesis.
5
For
a
comprehensive
discussion
see
Craig
Koester,
Hebrews
(AB
36:
New
York:
DoubleDay, 2001), 86-87. 6 Space in this paper does not allow for exploration of each of these passages in regards to their rhetorical function, as fruitful of an endeavor that would be. Thus, the focus here will be 6.4-12. 7 David A. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), 209. 8 Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 154. 9 Craig Koester "Hebrews, Rhetoric, and the Future of Humanity" in CBQ 64 (2002): 103-123. 10 Koester, Hebrews, AB: 89.
4 Section 1.2: Hebrews as an Oral Performance Once again, I confess that new ground is not being broken in exploring the
oratorical aspects of Hebrews, but the discussion is necessary because these aspects are the ground on which this paper stands. I will begin with the broad discussion of Hebrews as some type of oral document and move to a more specific suggestion of exactly what type of oral document it may be. Any interpreter discussing the type of document Hebrews might be must
deal
with
the
self-diagnosed
term
in
13.22,
.
Word
of
exhortation
is
the
most
suitable
way
to
translate
the
phrase,
as
most
modern
translations
do.11
Not
only
is
there
a
clear
sense
of
exhortation
throughout
the
entirety
of
Hebrews,
but
also
the
primary
use
of
concerns
emboldening
others
in
a
belief
or
a
course
of
action12
(cf.
Heb
12.5;
1
Cor
8.17,
13.22).
This
self- designation
does
not
necessarily
point
to
an
original
oratorical
setting
for
Hebrews,
in
its
own
right.
However,
when
this
designation
is
coupled
with
the
only
other
use
of
in
a
genitival
relationship
in
the
literature
of
both
the
NT
and
the
LXX
(Acts
13.15),
a
strong
case
can
be
made
for
oratorical
beginnings.
Scholars
have
been
correct
to
take
the
only
real
philological
clue
concerning
contained
in
the
NT,
namely
Acts
13.15,
and
make
use
of
it
to
determine
a
lexical
setting
for
the
term
in
Hebrews.
In
the
Acts
13
passage
the
reader
is
informed
that
after
the
reading
of
the
law
and
the
prophets13
the
leaders
of
the
synagogue
encouraged
Paul
and
those
with
him,
11 12
KJV, NASB, NIV, TNIV, NRSV BDAG, 766. 13 All NT translations are mine based on NA27, unless otherwise noted.
5 , (if
there
is
a
word
of
exhortation
in
one
of
you
for
the
people,
speak
it).
Paul
then
stands
up
and
gives
a
lengthy
exhortation
in
the
synagogue.
While
the
account
in
Acts
and
the
entirety
of
the
text
of
Hebrews
have
their
significant
differences,
it
is
safe
to
draw
a
firm
connection
between
the
two
concerning
the
broad
genre
of
,
concluding
it
is
probably
a
technical
literary
designation
for
a
certain
kind
of
oratorical
performance.14
Further
evidence
for
a
general
oral
character
of
Hebrews
is
given
by
a
number
of
the
particular
aspects
of
Hebrews,
three
of
which
are
briefly
overviewed
here.
First
is
the
repeated
use
of
the
first
person
plural15,
which
is
a
technique
that
reinforces
mutuality
between
the
speaker
and
the
audience.16
Second,
where
other
NT
literature
uses
writing/reading
terms
(cf.
Luke
1.3;
Rom
15.15;
1
Cor
4.14;
2
Cor
1.13;
Gal
1.20;
1
Thes
4.9;
1
John
2.7);
speaking/hearing
terms
are
found
in
Hebrews
(cf.
2.5;
5.11;
6.9;
11.32).17
Finally,
the
problem
introduced
at
the
outset
of
this
paper
can
now
serve
as
evidence
for
the
oral
aspect
of
Hebrews:
the
back
and
forth
movement
between
proposition
and
exhortation
is
often
cited
to
make
a
case
for
the
orality
of
Hebrews.18
Many
scholars
have
used
the
arguments
for
the
oral
genesis
of
Hebrews
to
posit
exactly
what
kind
of
oral
presentation
Hebrews
first
occurred
in.
Luke
Timothy
Johnson
suggests
it
is
an
oral
discourse
written
down
by
a
scribe,
but
14
Attridge,
Paraenesis,
217.
15
50
times
in
the
1st
person
plural
of
alone.
16 Scott D. Mackie, Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews (WUNT
223; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 23. 17 Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 10. 18 Ibid., 10.
6 allows
the
possibility
that
the
text
may
also
have
been
written
for
an
original
oral
discourse.19
Elke
Tnges
suggests
that
it
was
a
homily
that
the
editor
encountered
and
put
it
into
writing,
in
the
same
fashion
as
often
occurred
with
2nd
century
rabbinic
literature.20
Edgar
McKnight
also
makes
a
case
for
Hebrews
as
homily,
but
one
in
line
with
the
type
of
homily
that
was
developed
in
the
Hellenistic
city.21
Finally,
Gabriella
Gelardini
also
places
Hebrews
in
the
genre
of
homily,
although
for
a
specific
calendar
occasion.22
She
briefly
alludes
to
the
possibility
that
the
homily
is
spoken
by
an
itinerant
preacher
based
on
the
fact
that
the
speaker23
is
one
who
travels,
as
indicated
by
13.23.24
This
last
position
is
convincing,
not
based
on
13.23
alone,
but
because
it
makes
sense
of
the
speakers
continual
striving
to
establish
mutuality
and
solidarity
with
his
hearers
(which
would
not
have
implicitly
existed
if
he
were
an
itinerant
preacher),
his
single
use
of
the
term
,
a
word
which
is
often
used
where
the
author
is
familiar
with
the
community
(cf.
Rom
1.7;
12.19;
1
Cor
4.14;
10.14;
15.58),
and
can
also
help
explain
his
significant
appeals
to
the
emotions,
as
preachers
are
want
to
do.25
19
Ibid.,
10.
20
Elke
Tnges,
The
Epistle
to
the
Hebrews
as
Jesus-Midrash
in
Hebrews:
Contemporary Methods-New Insights (ed. Gabriella Gelardini; Boston: Brill, 2005), 105. 21 Edgar V. McKnight, "Literary and rhetorical form and structure in the "Epistle to the Hebrews." RevExp 102 (2005): 255-279. 22 Gabriella Gelardini, Hebrews, an Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha be-Av: Its Function, its Basis, its Theological Interpretation in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods-New Insights (ed. Gabriella Gelardini; Boston: Brill, 2005). 23 Now that the case has been made for the oral nature of Hebrews, the term speaker will be utilized when referring to the composer of the text. 24 Ibid. 116. 25 I only hope to entertain the proposition that Hebrews was originally spoken by an itinerant preacher, not fully develop the case here. However, it should be noted that when the term itinerant preacher is used, by no means should the hell, fire, and brimstone
7 Section 1.3: Rhetoricians and the Importance of Playing on Emotions Toward the beginning of this paper it was mentioned that the evidence from
the major rhetoricians betrayed the prevalent belittling of the hortatory sections of the text of Hebrews. Having presented the probability of an original oral setting of Hebrews, it is not safe to return and refute the fallacy that these paraenetic sections are merely asides, digressions, or respites from the real argument being made. That the ancient rhetoricians placed significant emphasis on the emotions
and the orators responsibility to play on the emotions of his or her hearer in the discourse of rhetoric, significantly betrays the depreciation of the hortatory sections of Hebrews, of which 6.4-12 is a part. Aristotle states, the emotions are all those affections which cause men to change their opinion in regards to their judgments. (Rhet. 2.1.8 [Freese, LCL]). Cicero says something similar, for men decide far more problems by hate, or love, or lust, or rage, or sorrow, or joy, or hope, or fear, or illusion or some other inward emotion than by reality or authority, or any legal standard, or judicial precedent or statute. (De oratore 2.42 178 [Sutton, LCL]) Finally, Quintillian gives a similar testimony, it is in its power over the emotions that the life and soul of oratory is found. (Inst. 6.2.7 [Butler, LCL]) What the rhetoricians inform is that it is actually in the emotional appeals that decisions are
preachers of the Great Awakening come to mind; by itinerant preacher I simply mean someone who speaks words of exhortation, and is not relationally familiar with the community being spoken to.
8 truly made, and thus, the success of the orator will necessarily depend strongly on his or her to appeal to the emotions of the hearer.26 This appeal to the emotions is exactly what the speaker of Hebrews provides
in
6.4-12.
In
this
way,
this
section
of
text,
along
with
the
other
paraenetic
sections,
is
actually
at
the
heart
of
the
speaker
of
Hebrews
discourse.
The
appeal
to
the
emotions
is
strong
in
the
rhetoric
of
the
pericope
and
would
have
been
even
stronger
in
the
original
oral
performance
of
Hebrews.
It
is
in
this
appeal
to
emotions
that
the
speaker
of
Hebrews
will
call
for
a
decision
from
his
hearers.
It
is
now
appropriate
to
explore
these
appeals
to
the
emotions
as
they
are
found
in
this
text.
Section
2:
The
Elements
of
6.4-12
Hebrews 6.4 begins a new pericope abruptly with , which
immediately
begins
to
build
suspense
in
the
hearer
because
the
infinitival
clause
is
delayed
and
not
completed
until
6.6.27
The
speaker
delays
the
answer
to
the
question
of
what
is
impossible
to
happen,
separating
the
answer
by
a
string
of
three
positive
participles:
(given
light/illumination),28 (having
experienced/tasted),29 (being/experiencing/partaking
in) and repeated
again.
The
participles
and each
take
positive
objects
that
reinforce
the
optimistic
nature
of
the
participles:
tasting/experiencing
the
heavenly
gift,
the
It should be noted that the Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintillian address deliberative rhetoric. A strong case can be made for the speaker of Hebrews to be utilizing such rhetoric, however limitations prevent the case from being presented here. However, even if the speaker is not utilizing deliberative rhetoric exclusively, there is no doubt that he is utilizing the emotional appeals that the rhetoric calls for, which will be revealed as the paper continues. 27 Luke
Timothy
Johnson,
Hebrews,
160.
28
BDAG,
1074.
29
BDAG,
195.
26
9 good word () of God and the power of the coming age and being a participator in the Holy Spirit. This optimistic string of participles with their accompanying positive objects would certainly have invoked optimistic emotions in the listening audience, who would have been confident that they were the referents of such speech. The fourth and final participle, , brings this positive streak to a
screeching
halt.
The
participle
literally
has
the
meaning
to
fall
about/aside,
but
usually
has
a
connotation
of
to
fail
to
follow
through
on
a
commitment30
(cf.
Wsd
6.9;
12.2;
Ezk
22.4).
The
hearer
is
moved
from
the
optimistic
emotions
that
accompanied
the
positive
participles
to
a
sense
of
uncertainty
and
fear.
Initially,
there
was
a
confidence
in
the
hearers
mind.
This
confidence
shifted
to
questioning
and
fear
due
to:
first,
the
dynamic
shift
in
the
fourth
participle;
second,
the
completion
of
the
infinitival
clause
( );
third,
the
switch
from
the
1st
person
plural
(that
had
been
occurring
throughout
the
discourse
previously)
to
the
third
person
singular
producing
a
sense
of
anonymity
as
to
who
this
person(s)
might
be;
fourth,
and
finally,
the
hearer
learns
that
those
falling
away
are,
crucifying31
the
Son
of
God
and
publicly
disgracing
him,
an
action
the
audience
clearly
would
not
want
to
be
associated
with.
The
audience
is
now
stricken
with
the
fearful
uncertainty
of
whether
or
not
they
are
part
of
this
group
committing
such
atrocities.
30
BDAG,
770.
, BDAG notes that ought to be understood in its typical sense of up, not again and multiple commentators follow in the same line of thought (Johnson, Hebrews, 161; Attridge, Hebrews, 167; Koester, AB: Hebrews, 315.
10 The fear only intensifies at this point, as the speaker invokes an agricultural
example in 6.6-8. He notes that there are two types of results from land that is often showered with rain: there is land that bears useful crops and there is land that bears thorny-plants and thistly-weeds. The two uses of the produced crops could not be any different; while the good land receives a (a blessing from God), the bad land (its end being burning). The metaphor rings of agricultural allusions to judgment from a number of sources.32 Many interpreters try to pinpoint an exact text the speaker is relying on, but this is unfruitful given that all of the proposed allusions only have a few words that match between the Hebrews text and the LXX text. It is more probable that the speaker is referring not to a specific referent, but an idea that was widely attested in the HB, LXX, early Christianity, and his contemporary Greco-Roman culture. In merely alluding to an idea rather than a specific text, the speaker keeps his audiences mind on the question of which land they are: the one that will receive a blessing from God, or the one whose end is to be burned. We now come to perhaps the most dramatic point in this section of speech;
the speaker is about to give his judgment on which of the two kinds of land his audience is, making use of a rhetorical function dubbed stasis. Johann Kim identifies and applies the idea of stasis in the setting of Romans 9-11, defining it as, the pause between opposite or contrary movements, an immobility before a change of
Possible allusions from the HB/LXX are Gen 1.11; 3.7-17; Deut 11.11-12; 11.26-28; 29.17; Is 5.1-7; Mal 2.2; Hos 10.8. Possible allusions from Jesus as reported in the gospels are Mark 4.1-20 and Luke 13.6-9. Possible references from extra-biblical sources include Seneca Ben 1.1.2; 4.8.2 and Philo Plant. 17-19.
32
11 direction.33 While it is noted that stasis typically occurs in courtroom rhetoric,34 it seems equally apt to apply it here; there is, without question, an immobility of fear that comes directly before the verdict of the speaker. The stasis is broken in 6.9 as the speaker moves back to the first person
plural, reflecting his confidence (and passing this confidence on to his audience) in the first word of the sentence which breaks the stasis-. He furthers the audiences confidence by referring to them for the first (and only) time as . The positive force is retained stronger in the Greek than in most modern English translations which bring though we speak like this to the beginning of the verse, rather than rendering the speakers confidence at the outset of breaking the stasis. The translation, but we are confident about you beloved, of better things and those being of salvation, even though we speak in this way, better reflects the confidence and optimism that is reflected in the text, and also would have been reflected in the orators speech. In moving back to the positive the speaker has presented harsh warnings and urgent calls to perseverance [that] are accompanied by a wealth of hortatory techniques that traverse the full range of human emotions.35 The audience has experienced a whirlwind of emotions in a short time: being certain of their standing, then coming into questioning fear with a long pause before the speaker gives his final verdict, which ultimately confirmed their original certainty of their standing. It
Johann D. Kim, God, Israel, and the Gentiles: Rhetoric and Situation in Romans 9-11, (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 17. 34 Ibid., 19. 35 Mackie, Eschatology, 23.
33
12 is this playing with the emotions of the audience that the rhetoricians understand as key for the ability to affect their judgments and decisions. The speaker uses vv. 10- 12 to further confirm and motivate the audience in regards to what these judgments might be. In verse ten the speaker moves back to the positive imagery that he left off at
in verse 5. He affirms that God will not forget their work, their love, or their service to the holy ones. In essence the speaker is making the ultimate confirmation that this community is indeed the well-watered field that produces worthy crops. From a rhetorical standpoint this confirmation is essential because, as Aristotle states, that which inflicts fear is the same as that which gives confidence, when confirmed (Rhet. 2.1.16 [Freese, LCL]). The very possibility that caused fear (that that the community could be in danger of being either a well watered field bearing crops or could be a well watered field bearing thorns), when confirmed, produces confidence in the community, which is essential for the orator in calling the hearers to some kind of action. The call to action is exactly what the speaker addresses in vv. 11-12. He
desires that each hearer display their earnest commitment to the fullness of their hope until the end. To not become sluggish, but to imitate those who are inheriting the promise through faith and endurance. The terms , (earnest commitment)36, (state of complete certainty)37, and (state
36 37
13 of being able to bear up under provocation)38 are a triplet of highly charged terms, which encourage the hearers to a certain course of action, one of confidence and resolve. Understanding what kind of confidence and resolve is being emotionally
called upon in this pericope will depend heavily on the manner in which the reader of this paper understands the function and central issues addressed in Hebrews. It is plausible that the encouragement is for the hearers to be certain of their atonement for sins; this section then becomes a strong admonition to not return to reliance on the Levitical cultus and to be assured of their atonement for sins. It is also plausible that the Hebrews address is to a community that have been Christians for some time and have become lackluster in their faith. 6.4-12 would then function as an encouragement for the community to return to its former glory. The interpretation of 6.4-12 which has been presented would have repercussions for both of these understandings of the function of Hebrews, however, a third option seems most appropriate not only for our pericope, but for the context of Hebrews in its entirety. This option is that the speaker is addressing a group facing a past persecution due to their religious practices39, which was endured, but members of the community, now
BDAG, 612. There are a number of possible historical settings for such persecution: Claudius in 49 CE (Koester, AB: Hebrews, 51), Nero in 64 CE, Vespasians in 70 CE (Ellen Bradshaw Aitken, Portraying the Temple in Stone and Text: The Arch of Titus and the Epistle to the Hebrews in
Hebrews:
Contemporary
Methods-New
Insights
(ed.
Gabriella
Gelardini;
Boston:
Brill,
2005),
131-148) and Domitian in 81 CE. Due to space constraints the probability of one historical setting over the others will not be espoused here. However unsatisfying this may be, it must suffice to say that there was some kind of setting of persecution in the recent history of the community.
39
38
14 facing lighter persecution, are not as confident and forthright in the beliefs and action they formerly practiced. Section 3: The Social Situation of Persecution Many take the evidence from 10.32-36 to point to a present situation of
persecution in the Hebrews community. However, it is necessary to take the overwhelming evidence of past persecution in this section at face value and not attempt to transpose a setting of present persecution. First, the speaker clearly says, remember the former days, which, without question, indicates an action or time prior to the present. Oftentimes in the NT this prior time () is indicative of a time that differed markedly in some way from the present time (cf. John 6.62; Eph 4.22; 1 Tim 1.13; 1 Pet 1.14). Second, there are an abundance of aorist verbs and participles that further the case for a period of persecution that occurred in the past. This is not to say that there could not have been elements of persecution in
the
present
situation
of
the
Hebrews
audience.
However,
the
present
persecutions
were
not
to
their
former
level
of
imprisonment,
seizure
of
property,
and
public
disgrace
and
oppression.40
The
speaker
points
to
these
past
persecutions
to
belittle
the
present
situation
of
persecution,
if
it
could
even
be
called
such.41
In
10.32-34
he
is
demonstrating
that
whatever
circumstance
the
community
is
facing
now,
is
not
on
the
level
of
the
former
days
of
persecution.
He
concludes,
through
a
negative
construction
in
10.35
that
the
audience
needs
to
hold
on
to
their
confidence,
rather
than
cast
it
off.
In
persevering
in
the
will
of
God
the
audience
will
receive
the
Mitchell points to the possibility of social dislocation. (Alan C. Mitchell, Hebrews (SP; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007), 12. 41 If the present situation of Hebrews is in post-persecution years, this may point to a late dating of Hebrews.
40
15 promise (10.36). Here there is a firm echo of 6.12, which also spoke of receiving the promises through an act similar to perseverance, namely patience. Throughout Hebrews there is continual use of this language of patience, confidence, perseverance, confirmation and the positive results that come from these actions.42 This lends to the conclusion that a crucial item on the speakers agenda was
to encourage his hearers in the action of continuing to persevere in the ways similar to those they formerly had when under more intense persecution. Their actions and beliefs were evident when they were having their property taken from them and were being imprisoned, but in the present state of affairs these actions and beliefs were not as strongly evident. The speaker attempts to remedy this situation. Mere scriptural/theological exegesis and presentation would never suffice to accomplish the encouragement needed for such a remedy. Thus, the speaker must pull out all the oratorical stops, playing on the emotions of his audience and, in doing so, begging them to make a decision concerning their resolution of actions and beliefs. This call to resolution, while evident in a number of sections of Hebrews, is especially evident in 6.4-12. When this section of Hebrews is cast off as a mere aside, the interpreter misses one of the major aspects of what the speaker of Hebrews was attempting to accomplish.
See 2.1; 2.3; 2.10; 2.18; 3.12; 3.14; 4.1; 4.1; 4.1; 4.11; 4.14; 4.16; 5.8; 5.11; 10.23-25; 11.1; 12.1-2; 12.7; 13.12-13.
42
Bibliography Aitken, Ellen Bradshaw. Portraying the Temple in Stone and Text: The Arch of Titus and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Pages 131-148 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods-New Insights Edited by Gabriella Gelardini; Boston: Brill, 2005. Aristotle. The Art of Rhetoric. Translated by John Henry Freese. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926. Attridge, Harold. Hebrews. Hermenia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989. Cicero. Marcus Tullius. De oratore; De facto; Paradoxa stoicorum; De partittione oratoria. Translated by E.W. Sutton. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: 1982. DeSilva, David A. "Exchanging Favor for Wrath : Apostasy in Hebrews and Patron- Client Relationships." Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 91-116. DeSilva, David A. Perserverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000. Eisenbaum, Pam. The Virtue of Suffering, the Necessity of Discipline, and the Pursuit of Perfection in Hebrews pages 331-353 in Asceticism and the New Testament. Edited by Leif E. Vaage and Vincent L. Wimbush. New York: Routledge 1999. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993. Gelardini, Gabriella. Hebrews, an Ancient Synagogue Homily for Tisha be-Av: Its function, its basis, its Theological Interpretation. Pages 107-127 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods-New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. Boston: Brill, 2005. Johnson, Luke Timothy. Hebrews. The New Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Know Press, 2006. Kim, Johann D. God, Israel, and the Gentiles: Rhetoric and Situation in Romans 9-11. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Koester, Craig R. Hebrews. Anchor Bible 36. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Koester, Craig R. "Hebrew, rhetoric, and the future of humanity." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64 (2002): 103-123. 16
17 Lane, Mitchell. Hebrews A, 1-8. Vol. 1 of Hebrews. Word Biblical Commentary 47. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1991. Lhr, Hermut. Reflections of Rhetorical Terminology in Hebrews Pages 199-210 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods-New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. Boston: Brill, 2005. Mackie, Scott. Eschatology and Exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. McKnight, Edgar V. "Literary and rhetorical form and structure in the "Epistle to the Hebrews." Review & Expositor 102 (2005): 255-279. Mitchell, Alan C. Hebrews. Sagra Pagina. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2007. Tnges, Elke. The Epistle to the Hebrews as Jesus-Midrash. Pages 89-105 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods-New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. Boston: Brill, 2005. Quintilian. The institution oratoria of Quintilian. Translated by H.E. Butler. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: 1985.