Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

THE ILIFF SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

THE HORTATORY AND ORATORICAL FUNCTION OF HEBREWS 6.4-12

SUBMITTED TO DR. PAMELA EISENBAUM IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF BS 3165 N.T. LITERATURE: HEBREWS

BY NICK ELDER MAY 26, 2011

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.

3 In whatever manner Hebrews is structured,5 5.11-6.20, 10.26-39, and 12.25-

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.

31 Crucifying again is a misguided translation of

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

BDAG, 939. BDAG, 827.

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.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi