The Rhetorical Form of the Melchizedek/Christ Comparison in Hebrews 7

The Rhetorical Form of the Melchizedek/Christ Comparison in Hebrews 7 by Timothy Wayne Seid B.A., Grace College, 1981 M.A., Wheaton College Graduate School, 1984 Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Religious Studies at Brown University May 1996 1 This dissertation by Timothy W. Seid is accepted in its present form by the Department of Religious Studies as satisfying the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Date ____________________ __________________________________________ Stanley K. Stowers Recommended to the Graduate Council Date ____________________ __________________________________________ Susan Ashbrook Harvey Date ____________________ __________________________________________ Shaye J. D. Cohen Approved by the Graduate Council Date ____________________ __________________________________________ 2 Timothy Wayne Seid I completed the major portion of the writing of this dissertation on the 38th commemoration of my birth on March 30, 1958 (Highland Park, Michigan). It has been twenty years since I graduated from Shelby High School in Shelby, Michigan, only one year of which I have not been considered a student somewhere. I am the youngest of three children born to Rev. William and Mary Jane Seid (both graduates of Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois). I followed in my father’s footsteps by first attending the Grand Rapids School of the Bible and Music, Grand Rapids, Michigan (now merged with Cornerstone College). I graduated from there, along with my high school sweetheart, Suann Fekken (daughter of John and Dorcas Fekken) in 1979, and we were married that summer. I was able to transfer some credits and complete my bachelor’s degree in Biblical Studies at Grace College, Winona Lake, Indiana. That year, 1981, we had our first daughter, Abigail Johanna. After a year away from school, I entered the Wheaton College Graduate School, Wheaton, Illinois. I graduated from there in December of 1984 while concurrently attending the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary. Our second daughter was born in 1983, Heidi Elizabeth. We moved to Rhode Island in 1985 as a doctoral student at Brown University in the Religious Studies Department. I spent a number of years on a leave of absence in order to work. We have been at Brown for many years and have had three additional daughters: Emily Jane (1989), Lauren Rebecca (1991), and Tabitha Joy (1992). We are members of the Phenix Baptist Church (American Baptist Churches, USA). I am known around the world — the World Wide Web — for my Interpreting Ancient Manuscripts Web (http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/mss/overview.html). It is a hyptertext introduction to the study of the Greek New Testament manuscripts (papyrology, paleography, codicology, textual criticism). I have contributed two articles (“Christianity in Gaza,” “Dorotheus of Gaza”) to the Early Christian On Line Encyclopedia, known as the Ecole Initiative (http://cedar.evansville.edu/~ecoleweb). 3 INTRODUCTION The problem of the literary riddle of the New Testament book of Hebrews is compounded by the enigma of Melchizedek in chapter 7. Many traditions regard this mysterious character as semi-divine. Even today Melchizedek appears in theosophy — and reportedly to some of its members. However, a careful analysis of this chapter in the light of GrecoRoman rhetoric illumines not only the role of Melchizedek, but also the literary genre of the whole of Hebrews. I will argue, therefore, that Hebrews 7 contains a formal comparison of Christ and the Melchizedekan priesthood with the Levitical priesthood. To say that Hebrews contains comparison and is concerned with showing the superiority of Christ is tantamount to stating the obvious. Commentators repeatedly describe Hebrews in this way. Nevertheless, they usually refer to comparison in a non-technical sense. Few recognize that comparison (suvgkrisi") was a distinct literary device used within speeches and as a separate literary genre in itself. This is due, in part, to the lack of research on synkrisis and to the tendency of scholars to place the writing of Hebrews in a Jewish milieu. The preponderance of literature on Hebrews concentrates on its stylistic and structural similarities with a body of Jewish commentary texts labeled midrash (pl. midrashim). This includes the type of argumentation often referred to as rabbinic hermeneutics. The assumption is that this form and methodology, though not written down until later, existed in oral form in Hebrew and Aramaic in the first century of the Common Era. While it may be a valid assumption, there is great difficulty in being able to determine how widespread it existed, how well developed it was, and how it relates to other types of literature from the first century. Although Jewish themes pervade the book of Hebrews, it is written in a classical Greek style. Many of the concepts in Hebrews are associated with the platonizing Jew, 4 Philo of Alexandria. It is clear in several places that the author of Hebrews bases his1 discussion of the scriptures on a Greek translation similar to what we have in the documents called the Septuagint (LXX). In the light of this, it is reasonable to think that one should also look to Greek literature and rhetoric for an understanding of the genre and structure of Hebrews. My primary focus is on the form of synkrisis, how it was described and how it was practiced. Then I will show that Hebrews belongs to this type of literature. Hebrews is a written speech of the type called epideictic. As such, it bears a relationship to encomiastic literature, a kind of epideictic, having the form of a synkrisis. The goal of this synkrisis is to encourage the audience to endure hardships and remain faithful, and to warn them of the God’s judgment against the disobedient. The author takes models from the scriptures in order to illustrate the greater help made available through Christ the enthroned Son, the greater hope through Christ the eternal high priest, and the greater harm which will come to those who are found faithless. I will show in a general overview that all of Hebrews belongs to this synkritic genre. The author of Hebrews uses educational metaphors related to elementary education and even calls his work a comparison (Heb 9:9). This will provide the setting for a closer reading of Hebrews 7 in which I will demonstrate how my approach gives a clearer understanding of the flow of the argument, solves interpretive difficulties, and presents a better translation of key passages. 1 The gender is usually considered masculine based on the masculine ending of the participle in Heb 11:32. For the argument concerning female authorship (Priscilla) see Cynthia Briggs Kittredge, “Hebrews,” in A Feminist Commentary, vol. 2 of Searching the Scriptures (New York: Crossroad, 1994), pp. 430–34. 5 CHAPTER ONE: THE LITERARY GENRE OF HEBREWS Identifying the genre of a literary document helps us understand the message of the text. It also tells us something about the writer and his/her readers. Addison Wright contends that, “genre classification is an aid to understanding the individual author in relation both to his social context and to literary techniques which he has used, modified or opposed, and that no work of literature can be understood correctly unless it is put into its proper literary focus in this way.”2 An improper literary focus will produce a distorted image of the text. Certain expectations are forced on the text which skew the implications of the text as the first readers would have understood it. Fiction treated as history misses the author’s viewpoint of people, events and ideas by looking only for data that meets historical verification. Poetry viewed as prose ignores the subtleties of language and the aesthetics of imagery. The identification of genre is vital to the task of understanding literature. This identification is dependent on two aspects of genre research. Put succinctly, genre is “a network of codes that can be inferred from a set of related texts.”3 One aspect is the ability to discern the codes within the text that were in place within the historical situation of the composition of the text. The second aspect is the determination of what texts are related to this one. What other texts are similar to this one, that share the same set of cultural codes of language, rhetoric, and style? These two aspects are guides for distinguishing the literary genre of a text. In the past, scholars have concluded that the New Testament book of Hebrews is a text that was produced from within Jewish culture. It is obvious that Hebrews has to do with the Jewish scriptures in its discussion of angels, the priesthood, the tabernacle, etc. In turn, the consensus has been to compare Hebrews with a set of Jewish texts that are labeled midrashim. These texts contain commentary on the Jewish scriptures, use a particular set 2Addison G. Wright, “The Literary Genre Midrash,” CBQ 3Robert Scholes, Textual Power: Literary Theory and the New Haven and London, 1985), p. 2. 6 (1966): 105. Teaching of English, (Yale University Press, of interpretive rules, and function in a distinct way. Since Hebrews has features related to the midrashim, commentators on Hebrews have identified Hebrews as a midrash or, at least, as containing midrash. This idea has been perpetuated in the literature as scholars of successive generations have depended on the same sources and have accepted the traditional reading. A survey of the scholarship on Hebrews reveals the current situation in which most, if not all, have depended on a few treatments of the topic of midrash. By analyzing what commentators and others have meant by midrash and the way in which writers on midrash describe it, we are able to demonstrate the faulty basis for this genre identification. Along with this midrashic interpretation is the idea that Hebrews is a particular kind of midrash, a sermonic or homiletical midrash called haggadah. This view argues that Hebrews is a homily of the type that was first preached in the synagogues and then in the church. Hebrews is classed with another set of texts which are also considered to be homiletical. Likewise, it will be shown that there is no basis for this argument. The features that are identified as midrashic by one, and homiletical by the other, lead instead to a different set of conclusions. Rather than appealing to a later set of Jewish texts or to a non-existent set of homiletical texts, we will relate Hebrews to Greco-Roman rhetoric and literature. This will set the stage for our discussion of Hebrews 7 as a suvgkrisi". Hebrews is Not Jewish Midrash A survey of scholarship on Hebrews reveals that many commentators have placed the interpretive design within Judaism.4 The descriptions vary: rabbinic hermeneutics,5 Jewish-rabbinic midrash,6 the exegetical method of the rabbinical academies of Palestine.7 4The point of the distinction between “Hellenistic” or “Jewish” is not necessarily to label the document as we have it but to distinguish the tradition from which the literary structure and argumentation has developed. 5 J. H. Kuinoel, Commentarius in epistolam ad Hebraeos, Leipzig, 1831. 6 Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer, Göttingen, 1960. 7 More recently George Buchanan, in the Anchor Bible series, has taken the entirety of Hebrews to be “a homiletical midrash based on Ps. 110.”8 It is not only those who write about Hebrews that give midrash as the literary genre. It is also those who write about midrash that almost always mention Hebrews as an example of midrash. The designation of midrash, however, is not helpful. The label midrash is unacceptable because it is too vague and because midrash properly belongs to a later period making the use of the term anachronistic. The Term Midrash is Too Vague Commentators on Hebrews and specialists in midrash almost all agree that Hebrews contains midrash. But when one investigates what the commentators mean by midrash and how the specialists define midrash, one discovers that the term is too vague. In the most recent commentary to date, Paul Ellingworth uses the term midrash 20 times in his 736 pages. For Ellingworth, midrash means a comment on or explanation of an Old Testament text. It can be as brief as a phrase.9 He considers several sections to be a midrash: 3:1-6 (Num. 12:7);10 7:4-10 (Gen. 14:17-20);11 11:15 (Gen. 23:4).12 He does, however, consider Buchanan’s thesis that all of Hebrews is a midrash “strained”13 and “too constricting.”14 Several times Ellingworth refers to a “midrashic style”15 and once to “older midrashim”16 — a clear connection between these “early midrashim” and the later. 7 8 Julius Graf, Der Hebräerbrief: wissenschaftlich-praktishe Erkläng, Freiburg, 1918. George Wesley Buchanan, To the Hebrews, in The Anchor Bible, vol. 36, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972), p. ix. 9Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, ed. I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), p. 372 10Ibid., p. 194. 11Ibid., p. 359. 12Ibid., p. 596. 13Ibid., p. 90. 14Ibid., p. 130. 15Ibid., p. 379,419. 16Ibid., p. 414. 8 Ellingworth never explains what he means by midrash. Midrash is only used to define particular passages. He identifies the overall genre of Hebrews as a letter or epistle.17 Although he cites “rabbinic principles” or “rabbinic exegesis” some 40 times, it is not used in conjunction with midrash, or as a component of it. Midrash in this commentary is never defined or explained. It can refer to a large section of commentary on an Old Testament text or it can simply explain the significance of a brief phrase. It is impossible to identify why sections are labeled midrash and what features of the text compel the author to make the designation other than the citation of an Old Testament text. In another recent commentary, Harold Attridge describes certain sections of Hebrews as midrash. Concerning Hebrews 7, the focal point of this dissertation, he states, “Formally the chapter is another midrash on a scriptural text, like those encountered earlier in Hebrews...”18 These earlier passages are 2:5-9 and 3:7-4:11. In the first passage, Attridge does not even use the term midrash.19 He does refer to the text as “exegesis,”20 as an “exegetical comment”21 and as an “exegetical discussion.”22 In the second passage cited, Attridge terms it a “little homiletic midrash.”23 He also calls it an “exposition,”24 an “exegesis”25 and a “homily.”26 Similar synonyms can be found in his discussion of chapter 7. One particularly descriptive phrase applied to the way in which the author of Hebrews discusses the Genesis text is “a playful exegesis.”27 17Ibid., p. 62. 18Harold W Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. Helmut Koester, Hermeneia — A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 186. 19Attridge does, however, find a parallel to what he calls “Jewish haggadists” (p. 71) for which he cites Pesiq. R. 34a and 3 Enoch 5.10. The former citation is a rabbinic midrash text. 20Ibid., p. 69, 75. 21Ibid., p. 72. 22Ibid., p. 77. 23Ibid., p. 114. 24Ibid. 25Ibid. 26Ibid., p. 120. 27Ibid., p. 187, 197. 9 It is clear that Attridge is not attempting to use the term midrash in a restrictive or narrow sense, but mainly as a synonym for exegesis. In this case, the vague term midrash becomes ambiguous — there is no way to tell what connotation the word has in a particular context. The only requirement for midrash/exegesis, for Attridge, is the citation or allusion to an Old Testament text. There is virtually no comparison of this midrash to a later, more developed rabbinic midrash. If all Attridge means by midrash is exegesis, then it is even less helpful for identifying the literary genre of Hebrews or of any particular sections. Even scholars who have attempted to define midrash perpetuate the vagueness of the term. One of the earliest in the modern era to discuss the genre of midrash was Renée Bloch.28 She defines midrash as “un genre édifiant et explicatif etroitement rattaché à l’Écriture, dans lequel la part de l’amplification est réele mais secondaire et reste toujours subordonnée à la fin religieuse essentielle, qui est de mettre en valeur plus pleinement l’œuvre de Dieu, la Parole de Dieu.”29 In addition, she associates midrash with exegesis that goes beyond the literal sense to a deeper, spiritual meaning.30 She identifies five characteristics of rabbinic midrash:31 (1) It has its point of departure in Scripture;32 (2) It is homiletical33; (3) It is a study attentive to the text; (4) Adaptation to the Present; (5) Aggadah and halakah.34 She gives examples of midrash beginning with the Hebrew Scriptures and goes on to identify apocryphal literature, Dead Sea scrolls (Habakkuk commentary), the Versions (e.g., LXX), the Palestinian Targums and the New Testament.35 28Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible, vol. 5, s.v. “Midrash,” by Renée Bloch, col. 1263-1281. Reprinted in Renée Bloch, “Midrash,” Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice, ed. William Scott Green, trans. Mary Howard Callaway, Brown Judaic Studies. (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978), 1: 29-50. 29Bloch, col. 1263. 30Ibid., col. 1264. 31Bloch is more interested in the biblical origins of the genre than she is in the later rabbinic midrashim. She believes that the genre was completely formed "aux environs de la naissance du christianisme (col. 1263).” 32“Il y a donc là un genre propre à Israël.... Le midrash ne peut en effet se rencontrer en dehors d’Israël (col. 1265).” 33“Le midrash n’est pas un genre d’école, mais un genre populaire, avant tout homilétique (col. 1265).” 34Bloch, col. 1265-1266. 35Ibid., col. 1279. “Le genre midrashique est constant dans l’épître aux Hébreux, avec la différence 10 The term midrash can hardly encompass such a variety of texts, from such a range of time and from such a geographical distance. Surely, such a term suffers from being too vague. The same can be said of Addison Wright who depends largely on Bloch’s work. Although he begins by establishing a set of narrow criteria, he also ends up including virtually the same material as Bloch and agreeing with her basic thesis. Wright points out in his introduction that the term midrash has become an equivocal term. Some have defined it so broadly that much of the Hebrew Bible would be called midrash. In fact, all of the Greek translation has been called midrash. He draws the conclusion that “...the word as used currently in biblical studies is approaching the point where it is no longer really meaningful and where some of the material designated as midrash resembles the later rabbinic midrash only in a very superficial way.36 It is Wright's contention that the term midrash should be used for a literary genre that appears in “a specific corpus of literature within Jewish oral tradition.”37 He adds “Our modern technical term midrash is a term that is intended to be precise and its meaning should therefore be confined to the proper meaning of the rabbinic term, and midrash when properly used by the rabbis designated works dealing with Scripture.”38 Wright makes the important caveat that “If we are to include pre-rabbinic literary pieces under our modern category of midrash, we should do so only on the grounds that they possess the primary characteristics of midrash as found in the rabbinic works.”39 Although Wright appears to set out to define midrash quite narrowly, he finally comes up with only one primary characteristic. We would conclude, therefore, that the basic midrashic structure, common to all forms that can be labeled midrash down to the smallest indepenque ce ne sont pas tant des réponses aux questions actuelles que l’auteur veut tirer des textes bibliques, que des arguments apologétiques. Particulièrement caractéristique est à cet égard le grand midrash sur Melchisédech dans le c. vii.” 36Wright, p. 108. 37Ibid., p. 120. 38Ibid., p. 122. 39Ibid. 11 dent unit, is merely that one begins with a text of Scripture and proceeds to comment on it in some way.40 There are diverse forms of midrash — exegetical, homiletic and narrative. There are two species of midrash — halakah and haggadah. And there are two basic exegetical methods — creative historiography and creative philology. Yet Wright posits only one essential characteristic for midrash. What appeared to be a study that would produce a narrowly defined genre within a specific tradition has emerged as a broad inclusion of material that only has to meet one criterion. Wright’s contribution to the study of midrash is the most extensive to date. His test for calling something midrash can be summarized as (1) cite, (2) comment, (3) contribute. Scripture must be cited (or at least alluded to); commentary is given; the commentary contributes to the understanding of the text in a new situation. While Wright begins by placing midrash within a specific tradition within Judaism, he is not right when he accepts as midrash, texts which merely have Scripture as a background for their discussion. His broad acceptance of texts which are not similar to the rabbinic exemplars have caused him to equivocate in his description of this genre. Gary Porton discusses the more narrow and broader views on what texts can be labeled midrash.41 He attempts to formulate a mediating position. In brief, I would define midrash as a type of literature, oral or written, which stands in direct relationship to a fixed, canonical text, considered to be the authoritative and the revealed word of God by the midrashist and his audience, and in which this canonical text is explicitly cited or clearly alluded to.42 Porton identifies four classes of post-biblical midrash: translation, the rewriting of the biblical text, the pesher, and rabbinic midrash.43 The first class involves the targumim — Onkelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, and Neofiti I. For the second, he has in mind the Liber 40Ibid., p. 133 41 Gary G. Porton, “Defining Midrash” in The Study of Ancient Judaism, vol. 1 Mishnah, Midrash, Siddur (New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1981), pp. 59-92. 42Ibid., p. 62. 43Ibid., p. 70. 12 Antiquitatum Biblicarum and the Genesis Apocryphon. Regarding the third class, Porton gives the pesher to Habakkuk as an example. He divides the fourth class into two categories, the homiletical and the expositional. The expositional follows the sequence of the biblical book. Good examples of this are Sifra, Sifré, Mekhilta, Genesis Rabbah and the midrash on Lamentations. The homiletical midrashim do not contain a running commentary on a biblical book but have a topic that includes comments on biblical texts. Porton lists the Pesiqtot, Deuteronomy Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah as the best examples. Porton’s description of midrash is indeed broad. The range of texts that he includes illustrates his understanding of midrash as interpretation or exegesis. Interpretive texts that deal with the canon of Scripture fit into his scheme. The method of interpretation seems to have little to do with its classification as midrash. Jacob Neusner acknowledges the vagueness of the term midrash. He writes: Many people refer these days to “Midrash,” but few tell us what they mean. The reason for prevailing confusion about Midrash is that a common English word “exegesis,” meaning “interpretation and explanation,” is replaced by an uncommon Hebrew word. The result is that people obscure matters that should be clear.44 Shaye Cohen also points out the modern problem in scholarship regarding the term midrash. The term has become so popular in recent years that in modern parlance it is virtually synonymous with “exegesis,” and any textual interpretation that is not absolutely true to its source is dubbed “midrash.” Since the term “midrash” is so slippery and vague, I shall avoid it here, preferring instead to use the more specific English terms like commentary, allusion, exegesis, and allegory.45 It is unclear in the literature exactly how midrash should be defined or what range of texts should be labeled midrash. The term is too vague in what features distinguish it and with what texts it should be compared. These are the components of identifying liter44Jacob Neusner,What is Midrash?, ed. Dan O. Via, Guides to Biblical Scholarship, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), p. xi. 45Shaye J. D. Cohen,From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, ed. Wayne A. Meeks, Library of Early Christianity, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987), p. 204-5. 13 ary genre. Midrash does not fulfill the requirements adequately either in the way it is used by commentators or by the way specialists in the field have defined it. The Term Midrash is Anachronistic Even if the term midrash is narrowed to include only texts that are related to the rabbinic midrashim, it is still not evident that this form of midrash existed in the first century. It is the contention of some that Hebrews is related to the later midrashim. The commentator who has made the strongest claim regarding the genre of midrash for Hebrews is George Buchanan. He states unequivocally in the very first sentence “The document entitled ‘To the Hebrews’ is a homiletical midrash based on Psalm 110.”46 Again, in the conclusion, Buchanan declares “The first twelve chapters of Hebrews constitute a complete homiletical midrash, similar to those in Pesikta de Rav Kahana.”47 Indubitably, when Buchanan uses the term midrash, he is referring to a set of texts. One type of midrash is “running commentary.” Among the running commentaries composed in New Testament times were some of the writings of Philo (“Questions and Answers in Genesis” and “Questions and Answers in Exodus”) and the Tannaitic midrashim: Mekilta (on parts of Exodus), Sifra (on Leviticus), and Sifré (on parts of Numbers and Deuteronomy). These all disclose the work of rabbis who were well versed in the Old Testament.48This raises two important points. Buchanan makes the connection between midrash and Hebrews by saying that the “Tannaitic midrashim” were “composed in New Testament times.”49 He draws a further distinction when he identifies these midrashim as “the work of rabbis.”50 First of all, it is an exaggeration to date the “Tannaitic midrashim” to “New Testament times.” Although dating these texts is difficult, a better approximation is the 3rd 46Buchanan, To 47Ibid., p. 246. 48Ibid., p. xx. 49Ibid. 50Ibid. the Hebrews, p. xix. 14 century as opposed to the first.51 When it comes to the text Buchanan puts forth for comparison, the Pesiqta de Rab Kahana, Neusner places the date sometime after Leviticus Rabbah (ca. 450) and before the Babylonian Talmud (ca. 600).52 To use these texts for comparison to Hebrews is anachronistic. And Buchanan’s use of the expression “New Testament times” is somewhat deceptive. Secondly, Buchanan places midrash in the rabbinic tradition. This is an important point, not because it is wrong, but because it is right. The problem comes in when texts such as Philo and the New Testament are also included in the rabbinic tradition. Different Jewish groups practiced exegesis and developed commentaries on the ancient scriptures but that does not permit the nomenclature “rabbinic.” This label also is anachronistic for the first century. The second type of midrashim which Buchanan identifies is “homiletic midrashim.”53 Homiletic midrashim are sermons or essays which expound important subjects or texts in the Old Testament. Philo composed some of these (“On the Creation of the World,” “Allegorical Interpretation,” “On the Cherubim,” “The Tower of Babel,” “Moses,” and “The Ten Commandments”). Others are included in such collections as Pesikta de Rav Kahana, Tanhuma, and Pesikta Rabbati.54 According to Buchanan, the writers of these midrashim used the same methodology as those who wrote running commentaries. The difference is that while there is one principal text, other texts may be introduced along with illustrations. It is Buchanan’s contention that this one text is Ps. 110 for the author of Hebrews although other texts are discussed similar to these homiletical midrashim. An additional aspect to midrash is the way in which the sacred text is interpreted. “Rabbis had numerous, well-established rules for doing this, and 51Neusner,What 52Ibid., p. 69. 53Buchanan, To 54Ibid. is Midrash?, p. 43. the Hebrews, p. xxi. 15 some of them were employed by the author of Hebrews.”55 Here Buchanan again inserts the notion of rabbinic thought and practice. Again, appealing to literature of such a late date is anachronistic. It is also an anachronism to support such a view by claiming that Hebrews contains evidence of hermeneutical principles that can be found in rabbinical midrashim and so Hebrews belongs to this type of literature. There is another explanation for these literary features of commentary and interpretive devices. In making the comparison of first century texts with much later texts, scholars are trying to establish a trajectory of dependence. There is a tendency to start with a fully developed type of literature and work backwards to its origins. The methodology is sound. What has happened, however, is that the fully developed form is designated as rabbinic midrashim with rabbinic hermeneutical principles. Then everything in the backwards trajectory is also labeled rabbinic hermeneutics, Jewish exegesis, and, in this case, midrashic. If one culture borrows from another culture, then the trajectory, at some point, is located in the other culture. This is the case with these two features of midrash as has been posited in Hebrews, commentary and hermeneutics. Cohen makes this point about the writing of commentaries. Jews probably learned to write commentaries from the Greeks. Commentaries on Homer and other “canonical” authors were staples of Hellenistic scholarship, and the first Greek Jewish exegete, ... Demetrius ..., shows the influence of the Hellenistic literary form.56 As will be shown below in the exegesis of Hebrews 7, many of the features which are claimed to be midrashic or rabbinic are much better explained by appealing to Hellenistic sources. Buchanan, for instance, discusses the “typical midrashic introductions” used in florilegia: “has he ever said? … and again … he said … it says … to the Son … and … 55Ibid., p. xxii. 56Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, p. 213. 16 has he ever said?”57 This is much more comparable to the way in which Plutarch quotes from ancient sources than it is to what we find in the tannaitic midrashim.58 Likewise, the rabbinical hermeneutical principles which most commentators use to explain the argumentation and logic of Hebrews also have roots in Greek philosophy and logic. Cohen makes this point also “The rabbinic modes of argumentation and scholarly analysis are those of Hellenistic rhetoricians.”59 Others have also made this case.60 For these two reasons — that the term midrash is too vague and that the identification of Hebrews with rabbinic midrashim is anachronistic — it is necessary to look elsewhere in order to discover the literary genre of Hebrews. It is the judgment of Anthony Saldarini regarding the identification of Hebrews with midrash that “analogies for its genre are still best sought among more Hellenistic works.”61 Hebrews as Jewish/Christian Synagogue Homily Another common description of Hebrews is that it is a sermon or homily. For the most part this designation is based on the opinion that preaching from a biblical text was a regular activity of the Jewish synagogue. This view also holds that the early church was patterned after the synagogue. Therefore, Christian preaching is related to synagogue homilies. There are a variety of arguments built on this common thesis. For some, the argument is much the same as in the preceding section, that Hebrews is a homiletical midrash 57Buchanan, To 58E.g., Plutarch, the Hebrews, p. xxiii. Isis and Osiris, 361A. “fauvlwn,…kai; pavlin…kai;…” 59Cohen,From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, p. 216. 60Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942; repr. New York: Feldheim, 1965); Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962); “How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?,” Essays in Greco-Roman and Related Talmuaic Literature, ed. Henry Fischel, (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1977), 325-43; David Daube, “Rabbinic methods of interpretation and Hellenistic rhetoric,” HUCA 22 (1949): 239264; Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, trans. John Bowden, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), p. 81; E. E. Hallewy, “The Writers of the Aggada and the Greek Grammarians,” Tarbiz 29 (1959/60): 47-55; “Biblical Midrash and Homeric Exegesis,” Tarbiz 31 (1961/62): 157-69, 264-80. 61Anthony J. Saldarini, “Judaism and the New Testament,” in The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. Eldon Jay Epp and George W. MacRae, The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), p. 41. 17 similar to homiletical midrash preached in the synagogue. A second view compares Hebrews to a different set of texts — Jewish-Hellenistic as opposed to Rabbinic midrash — but is still arguing for the existence of a synagogue homily. Finally, a third view takes the Hebrews’ self-designation “word of exhortation” and finds a rhetorical pattern that coincides with Paul’s speech in Acts 13:14-31 also called a “word of exhortation.” A discussion of each view will show the faulty assumptions on which the arguments are built. For it is the opinion of some that these attempts to reconstruct the Jewish synagogue sermon style or pattern are futile. David Aune, for instance, warns that “There is a danger of anachronism, however, in using Jewish homiletic forms from later centuries, since Jewish scholars place the beginning of these forms in the third century A.D.”62 In a similar vein, Aune makes the comment “prior to the formation of the Mishnah (ca. A.D. 200) fixed sermonic patterns did not exist. The origin of the Jewish synagogue sermon is shrouded in obscurity,…”63 In spite of the paucity of evidence, many have attempted, in one way or another, to trace the synagogue sermon and the preaching of the early Church back to forms existing in the first century and to apply this knowledge to Hebrews. Homiletical Midrash It is a common assumption that midrashim, or at least one kind of midrashim, were products of preaching in the synagogue. It was Bloch’s opinion that the midrashim were written for the people and that they were homiletical. She wrote, “il reflète très probablement les homélies qui faisaient suite à cette lecture dans les synagogues.” 64 Wright concurs that “the Sitz im Leben of the haggadah (and of the popular halakah) was the preaching which followed the biblical reading in the cultic assemblies on Sabbaths and festivals, and the preaching on important public and private occasions (war, famine, circumcision, weddings, 62David E. Aune,The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, ed. Wayne A. Meeks, Library of Early Christianity, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987), p. 53 63Ibid., p. 202. 64Bloch, “Midrash” col. 1265. 18 funerals, etc.).”65 He qualifies his statement when he writes “Recent study seems to indicate that … real sermons are not preserved in these midrashim, but that the structures or patterns used in the real homilies have been employed in a rather mechanical way to collect the units of traditional material within them and form artificial homilies.”66 Regardless of whether the midrashim contain real sermons or artifical ones based on the “structures or patterns” of real sermons, what remains is that these midrashim represent a sermonic form supposed to be used in synagogue worship. Hebrews does not conform to homiletical midrash. It has already been argued above that midrash is not an adequate designation for the genre of Hebrews. That argument is based on the vagueness of the term midrash and the anachronism involved in relating Hebrews to texts which are dated to the third century and beyond. But even if it is agreed that midrash refers to the form of rabbinic midrashim and if it is conceded that midrash may have existed in the first century, the fact still remains that Hebrews does not conform to the earliest extant texts that can be adequately labeled midrash. Although many of the writers on midrash refer to the type homiletical midrash, rarely do they give examples. One exception is Porton who judges that “The Pesiqtot, Deuteronomy Rabbah and Leviticus Rabbah are the best examples of the homiletical midrashim.”67 Porton notes that Heinemann68 holds that Leviticus Rabbah is “the first midrash of this type and the precursor of the ‘literary homily’ as a new literary genre.”69 An excerpt of this text will show its unique character and its dissimilarity to Hebrews. Leviticus Rabbah XIII:V70 65Wright, “The Literary Genre Midrash,” p. 124 66Ibid., p. 127. 67Porton, Defining Midrash, p. 78-79. 68J. Heinemann, “The Art of Composition in Leviticus Rabba,” 69Porton, Defining Midrash, p. 79. 70Translation from Neusner, What is Midrash, pp. 61-62. 19 HaSifrut (1969-1970): 808-834. Said R. Ishmael b. R. Nebemiah, “All the prophets foresaw what the pagan kingdoms would do [to Israel].” “The first man foresaw what the pagan kingdoms would do [to Israel]. “That is in line with the following verse of Scripture: ‘A river flowed out of Eden [to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers]’ (Gen. 2:10. [The four rivers stand for the four kingdoms, Babylonia, Media, Greece, and Rome.]” “[There it divided] and became four rivers” (Gen. 2:10) — this refers to the four kingdoms. “The name of the first is Pishon (PSWN); [it is the one which flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there]” (Gen. 2:11-12). This refers to Babylonia, on account [of the reference to Babylonia in the following verse:] “And their [the Babylonians’] horsemen spread themselves (PSW)” (Hab. 1:8). [It is further] on account of [Nebuchadnezzar’s being] a dwarf, shorter than ordinary men by a handbreadth. “[It is the one which flows around the whole land of Havilah” (Gen. 2:11). “This [reference to the river’s flowing around the whole land] speaks of Nebuchadnezzar, the wicked man, who came up and surrounded the entire Land of Israel, which places its hope in the Holy One, blessed be he.” This is in line with the following verse of Scripture: “Hope in God, for I shall again praise him” (Ps. 42:5). “The name of the second river is Gihon; [it is the one which flows around the whole land of Cush]” (Gen. 2:13). This refers to Media, which produced Haman, that wicked man, who spit out venom like a serpent. It is on account of the verse: “On your belly will you go” (Gen. 3:14). “It is the one which flows around the whole land of Cush” (Gen. 2:13). [We know that this refers to Media, because it is said:] “Who rules from India to Cush” (Esth. 1:1). The point of the midrash is to explain that after Rome rules, Israel will rule. The scripture from Genesis 2:10 is used to represent the four kingdoms. The connection between the name of the river and the kingdom is made based on similar Hebrew words in their consonantal form or the appearance of the name in another context. Nothing of this sort can be found in Hebrews. The citations of Scripture do not follow this pattern. The important hortatory sections of Hebrews have no equivalent in the homiletical midrashim. 20 In fact, there is no basis in form for calling Hebrews a homiletical midrash. Even if Hebrews did conform to the style of the homiletical midrash, there is no evidence that midrashim were even preached in the synagogue. Evidence is Contradictory. Porton counters the view that the midrashim were preached in the synagogues. He argues that, first of all, “there is no proof that the rabbis regularly preached in the synagogues; in fact, the evidence from Babylonia suggests otherwise.”71 He argues further that the midrashim are too brief to contain actual sermons. Thirdly, he reasons that the midrash are too obscure, elusive and complex to think that they represent sermons.72 It was the opinion of Mme. Bloch that “Le midrash n’est pas un genre d’école, mais un genre populaire, avant tout homilétique.73 Porton states the opposite: “It is possible that many of these passages created in the schoolhouses were intended solely for the inhabitants of the schools.”74 That such opposite opinions can be arrived at illustrates how scanty the evidence is for midrashim to represent a form of homily that was preached in the ancient synagogue. Jewish-Hellenistic Homily In his classic work Der Stil der Jüdisch-Hellenistischen Homilie, Hartwig Thyen collects a different set of texts than the rabbinic midrashim to develop his thesis for the existence of synagogue homilies. In these texts he finds several features which he contends are characteristic of the style of Jewish-Hellenistic homilies. Thyen recognizes the difficulty in dealing with the literary evidence. Das Quellenmaterial ist zu spärlich, um eine Geschichte der jüdischhellenistischen Homiletik geben zu können; so müssen wir uns darauf 71Porton cites Neusner, History, III, 72Ibid. 73Bloch, “Midrash” col. 1265. 74Porton, Defining Midrash, p. 80. 234-238; IV, 149-151 (Defining Midrash, p. 80). 21 beschränken, ein möglichst breites Bild der Gattung griechischer Synagogen-predigt zu zeichnen.75 Nonetheless, Thyen gathers together thirteen documents or parts of documents that he considers to be source material. Hebrews is among this group of texts along with the Genesis commentary of Philo, First Clement, Fourth Maccabees, James, parts of First and Third Maccabees, the Speech of Stephen (Acts 7), chapters 1-6 of the Didache, Letter of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, part of Tobit, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Wisdom of Solomon. Thyen distinguishes three features about these texts that he connects with synagogue preaching: the form and style of the “Cynic-Stoic” diatribe, the use of the Old Testament and the form and composition of paraenesis. Thyen’s methodology is flawed in that it is based on circular reasoning: Sermon source A has feature B; Synagogue sermons have feature B because sermons like sermon source A have features like feature B. Some of the sources were chosen because they have features that Thyen believes were homiletical. Some, like Hebrews and 4 Maccabees, were selected because they contain language that implies a speech given to an audience. For the most part, Thyen chose texts because he found secondary literature which made some assertion about a text and its possibility of having been presented to an audience. A few examples are sufficient to show that current research does not support the Sitz im Leben of a synagogue sermon. A case in point is 4 Maccabees. In the Harper’s Bible Commentary, Stowers rejects the notion of describing 4 Maccabees as a synagogue sermon “since we know almost nothing about synagogue ‘preaching’ in the time of 4 Maccabees.”76 He concludes that “4 Maccabees represents the perfect form for a rhetorically trained orator who is also committed to philosophy. It both rhetorically argues a philosophical thesis and develops that thesis into an encomium of those examples that are 75Hartwig Thyen,Der Stil der Jüdisch-Hellenistischen Homilie, ed. Rudolf Bultmann, FRLANT, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955), p. 5. 76Stanley K. Stowers, “4 Maccabees,” Harper's Bible Commentary, ed. James L. Mays, (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 922. 22 used as evidence for the thesis.”77 Rather than locating the delivery of the speech — whether real or fictive — in a synagogue, it is more likely that it is to be associated with a commemorative festival, perhaps at the gravesite of the martyrs since there are features in 4 Maccabees that are typical of the ancient funeral oration. Stowers acknowledges the presence of “diatribe” in 1:1 - 3:18 but notes that “recent scholarship on the diatribe has shown that it is better defined as a type of rhetoric that has its setting in the classroom discussion of the philosophical schools.”78 Clearly, 4 Maccabees is better understood in its GrecoRoman context than it is to be understood in a synagogue situation. The Wisdom of Solomon is another perfect case for which earlier scholars had made the designation “hellenistic midrash.” Thyen writes Wahrscheinlich ist es das Pathos des Predigers, das aus den letzten Kapiteln der Sapientia zu uns spricht, und wir haben deshalb eine wichtige quelle für die vorphilonische alexandrinische Homiletik in diesen Kapiteln vor uns. Bedeutsam für uns ist diese Schrift ferner, weil sie uns zeigt, wie hebräischen Spruchgut Eingang fand in die hellenistische Synagoge.79 His conclusions are completely unfounded and are only arrived at by presupposition. The Wisdom of Solomon shows no hint of containing direct address to an audience. Rather than exhibiting features of a Jewish synagogue sermon, it is more accurate to point to a Greek model. James Reese has pointed out the hellenistic literary influence on the Wisdom of Solomon.80 In his commentary on the Wisdom of Solomon, he terms the literary genre as “protreptic, a genre of rhetorical exhortation in Greek philosophy.”81 As to the Sitz im Leben of the document, Reese comments “The literary form and special vocabulary indicate that it is a Hellenistic school tract.”82 As to the last part of the Wisdom of 77Ibid., p. 923. 78Ibid., p. 922. 79Thyen, Der Stil, p. 27 80James M. Reese, Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences, Analecta Biblica, (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 197 81James M. Reese, “Wisdom of Solomon,” Harper's Bible Commentary, ed. James L. Mays., (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 820. 82Ibid. However, Reese also says, “its style and content point to literary activity within a rabbinical school as the setting for its composition (p. 821).” 23 Solomon, Reese names it “a syncrisis, or comparison, an adaptation of a Hellenistic form in which two persons or qualities or events are compared.”83 Clearly, there is no evidence, internal or external, to support Thyen’s contention that the Wisdom of Solomon is a source for synagogue practice or of the style of the hypothetical “synagogue sermon.” Of Hebrews, Thyen writes, “… stellt sich der Hebr dar als ein nach allen Regeln der griechischen Rhetorik gebauter, sorgsam disponierter, schriftlich fixierter Lehrvortrag.84 He goes on to quote Hans Windisch who calls Hebrews a “niedergeschriebene Predigt.”85 Thyen then draws the inference that Hebrews is a homily. The final step in his argument is the equating of a homily with the hypothetical “jüdischhellenistischen Synagogenpredigt.” He shows support for Hebrews being a direct speech to an audience but fails to prove that the speech is of a special kind, namely a synagogue sermon. A crucial feature of Thyen’s argument is that synagogue sermons were influenced by the so-called cynic-stoic diatribe, what Thyen calls “der Lehrvortrag der kynischstoischen Popularphilosophen.”86 He bases his understanding of diatribe on the classic text of his teacher Rudolf Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynischstoische Diatribe.87 It was Bultmann’s thesis that the diatribe was a form of philosophical public preaching. He considered Paul’s letters to contain elements of the diatribe which therefore constituted a written form of Paul’s preaching. Thyen has used this to validate the association of diatribal form with synagogue preaching. But Bultmann’s position has been shown to be faulty.88 Stowers has demonstrated that the diatribe is not a public harangue but has its setting in the school. 83Ibid., p. 821. 84Thyen, Der Stil, p. 16. 85Ibid. 86Ibid., p. 40. 87Rudolf Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und neuen Testament, 13 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910). 88Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, SBL Diss. Ser. 57, (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). 24 “Diatribe” can only be a useful concept if we use it in a way which approximates ancient usage: A term for teaching activity in the schools, literary imitations of that activity, or for writings which employ the rhetorical and pedagogical style typical of diatribes in the schools.89 Most of the literary evidence for synagogue preaching comes from the activities of Paul recorded in Acts. Stowers points out that in Acts, the house is the usual locus of Paul’s preaching.90 This follows the example of sophists and philosophers such as Proclus, Libanius, Epictetus, Plutarch, and the Epicureans. When Paul does speak in the synagogue, it is not portrayed as an official address to a congregation. Acts 17 is a good example. Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks (ejpi; savbbata triva) he argued (dielevxato) with them from the scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” (Acts 17:1-3 RSV). Paul is not presented as simply going into a synagogue on a sabbath day and preaching. The expression used for the time element suggests the duration of three weeks rather than three separate sabbath days. Even more illuminating is the use of the term dialevgomai a term expressing discussion, debate and dialogue. The setting, then, is most likely a meeting place on the order of the “house of study”. Here Paul engages in dialogue perhaps using the methods that are typical of diatribe. Another example is Acts 19. And he entered the synagogue and for three months (ejpi; mh'na" trei'") spoke boldly, arguing (dialegovmeno") and pleading about the kingdom of God; but when some were stubborn and disbelieved, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them, taking the disciples with him, and argued (dialegovmeno") daily in the hall (scolh/') of Tyrannus (Acts 19:8-9 RSV). Note that the author has again used ejpiv to designate the duration of time. The text does not specify that this was only something done on the Sabbath, only that it was done in the 89Stanley K. Stowers, “The Diatribe,” Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament, ed. David E. Aune, SBL Sources for Biblical Study. 21 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 73. 90Stanley K. Stowers, “Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity,” NovTest 26 (1984): 64ff. 25 synagogue. Surely this indicates the synagogal school rather than a liturgical setting. The term dialevgomai is used both for what Paul did in the synagogue and for what he did in the “school” of Tyrannus. These texts demonstrate that Paul’s activity in the synagogues of Asia Minor and Greece did not constitute preaching sermons but engaging people in dialogue in what was most likely a scholastic setting. Thyen’s basic presuppositions are thoroughly flawed. They are flawed because he engages in circular reasoning in order to establish his source material and flawed because he misunderstood the function of diatribe in its proper setting. Yet many modern interpreters still cite Thyen’s work as support for the idea of the synagogue sermon.91 Homiletical Patterns Another way of attempting to distinguish a Jewish-Hellenistic sermon is to find a homiletical pattern in literature that is thought to be sermonic. We will analyze two such approaches. The first study does not explicitly apply to Hebrews but is a significant contribution to the study of ancient synagogue homilies. The second study is an attempt to construct a pattern and apply it to Hebrews. Haggadic Tradition and the Proem Peder Borgen tries to make the case that there was a particular homiletical pattern in what he simply calls the “haggadic tradition” that can be discerned in Philo, some Palestinian midrash and John 6.92 Since he is talking about some amorphous but ubiquitous “haggadic tradition,” Borgen is able to ignore the issue of dating texts and identifying their provenance. Even the issue of whether the texts from Philo and the conversation of Jesus in John 6 constitute homilies is presupposed. Borgen also contrasts Greek influence and rabbinic influence. Instead of recognizing the origins in Greek methods that come prior to 91James Swetnam, “On the Literary Genre of the 'Epistle' to the Hebrews,” NovT 11 (1969): 261-69. 92Peder Borgen, Bread From Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo, ed. W. C. van Unnik, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965). 26 the texts in question, he chooses to argue for the influence of literature that comes after these texts. It makes more sense to appeal to earlier literature affecting both the target texts and the later rabbinic methods and patterns. Instead, Borgen is convinced solely on the similarity of disparate texts cited with reference to the giving of manna. The main source for what Borgen has called “Palestinian midrash” is the proem.93 William Stegner describes the proem as “a short homily that introduced the Torah reading for the week.”94 He dates this material from the third century to the fifth. The proem begins with a text that is not from the Torah reading. The preacher explains that text and eventually relates it to the main text for the day. In Stegner’s view, this preceded the reading of the Torah in the synagogue service. After the reading of the Torah, the reading from the Prophets was given. This is how Stegner understands the liturgy during the Amoraic period (200 C.E . to 500). He contrasts this to what he understands to have been the case in the first century when the reading of the Torah and the reading of the Prophets was followed by a sermon. He bases this on evidence from Acts and Luke. Martin Jaffee enumerates the five traits that are generally recognized in the proem. A superscription (“Rabbi X commenced” or “This is what Scripture says”), Scriptural citation + explanatory pericope, Sequence of independent pericopae related to the verse of II and/or a series of entirely unrelated verses, Citation of the verse of II + explanatory pericope, Citation of a final scriptural verse unrelated to that cited at II.95 Jaffee dates these texts from the fourth century through the seventh. He cites Genesis Rabbah, Leviticus Rabbah, Lamentations Rabbah, and Pesikta de Rab Kahana as examples. 93The classic studies in this area are Leopold Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt. Ein Beitrag zur Altertumskunde und biblischen Kritik, zur Literatur- und Religionsgeschichte, 2 ed, (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1966) and Joseph Heinemann, “The Proem in the Aggadic Midrashim: A Form-Critical Study,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971): 100-22. 94William Richard Stegner, “The Ancient Jewish Synagogue Homily,” Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament, ed. David E. Aune, SBL Sources for Biblical Study. 21 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 52. 95Martin S. Jaffee, “The ‘Midrashic’ Proem: Towards the Description of Rabbinic Exegesis,” Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Studies in Liturgy, Exegesis, and Talmudic Narrative, ed. William Scott Green, Brown Judaic Studies. 4 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), p. 96. 27 While Borgen along with many others have described the proem as being an introductory sermon preached in the synagogue service, Jaffee comes to a different conclusion that deserves being quoted in full. … it is time to revise the scholarly consensus regarding the original Sitz im Leben of the proem. The consensus is that the proem originates in homiletic sermons, the purpose of which was to inculcate in the masses the theological and ethical doctrines of rabbinic Judaism. The evidence of the proem, however, reveals first of all that it is hardly suited for oral presentation. Its structure and method are purely literary. The form requires the discerning eye, which can ponder riddles and return to a text in order to find and resolve deeper ambiguities. Second, and in the same vein, the sophisticated exegetical rules assumed by the proem hardly suggest that its audience will be unlettered in rabbinic disciplines. The proem appears not to be a homiletic form with which an intellectual or religious elite waters down its private knowledge for the consumption of a well-meaning but ignorant public. Quite to the contrary. A plausible (but unverifiable) Sitz im Leben for the proem would be that assumed by nearly all other rabbinic literature, the house of study or the circle of the master and disciple — any context, that is, in which masters of rabbinic tradition train disciples in the way of tradition.96 Once again we find that texts that are considered to be relevant to the first century “synagogue sermon” are much later developments and that, when studied in their own setting, are not homiletical at all, but are better described as scholastic. “Word of Exhortation” Another attempt to discover a homiletical pattern of early Jewish and Christian sermons is that of Lawrence Wills.97 Wills recognizes that the various attempts to discover a sermon type have been flawed. In spite of this, Wills undauntedly proposes “to demonstrate that one common form of the Hellenistic Jewish and early Christian sermon can be reconstructed in a precise way.”98 96Ibid., p. 107. 97Lawrence Wills, “The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity,” HTR 77:3-4 (1984): 277-99. 98Ibid., p. 278. 28 Wills bases his research on several presuppositions. One presupposition is that a common feature of synagogue worship in the first century was preaching. He describes the context of Acts 13:14ff as a “typical synagogue homily.”99 We can scarcely say from the evidence in Acts what was “typical”. Wills seems to accept the view that “synagogue homilies” were preached after the reading of the Law and the Prophets. In Acts 13 and in Luke 4 we have mention of the reading followed by a message. But Jesus’ brief remark after his reading of Isaiah can hardly be described as a sermon. For all we know, it may have been customary, after a regular order of liturgy, to have visitors address the audience. Or the situations that we have recorded may represent ad hoc events rather than regular and “typical” activities. The most important presupposition is that the phrase “word of exhortation” became a technical term for “the sermon of the worship service in early Christianity.”100 His evidence for this is that the leaders of the synagogue said to Paul and his followers, “Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation (lovgo" paraklhvsew") for the people, say it” (Acts 13:15). Wills also points to Hebrews 13:22: “I appeal to you (Parakalw' de; uJma;"), brethren, bear with my word of exhortation (ajnevcesqe tou' lovgou th'" paraklhvsew"), for I have written to you briefly.” In addition to these two examples, Wills cites the late fourth century Apostolic Constitutions (8.5) which calls the address in the ordination of a bishop a “word of exhortation”. Wills notes that in other instances where this expression is found it can mean “persuasive words” as in 1 Macc. 10:24 or “words of encouragement” as in 2 Macc. 7:24 and 15:11.101 Yet he concludes from this that “These passges may indicate that the term is already a fixed expression in the second century B.C.E ., even if the meaning is somewhat general.”102 We should use these instances to elucidate the meaning in Acts and Hebrews 99Ibid. 100Ibid., 101Ibid., 102Ibid. p. 280. n. 10. 29 rather than the other way around. The expression “word of exhortation” is equivalant to other expressions like “word of wisdom” (1 Cor. 12:8), “word of knowledge” (1 Cor. 12:8), “word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19), “word of truth” (Eph. 1:13), etc. The meaning of the term is too vague and its usage too scarce to be considered a common designation for a fixed sermon type. Wills analyzes the speech in Acts 13 and comes up with a three-fold pattern. The pattern generally consists of (1) an indicative or exemplary section (hereafter referred to as “exempla”), in the form of scriptural quotations, authoritative examples from past or present, or reasoned exposition of theological points; (2) a conclusion, based on the exempla and indicating their significance for those addressed (often expressed with a participle and ou\n, diov, dia; tou'to, or some such particle or conjunction); and (3) an exhortation (usually expressed with an imperative or hortatory subjunctive, often accompanied by ou\n).103 He finds this pattern in Hebrews, but in a cyclical fashion. This is true of other texts he examines such as 1 Clement, other speeches in Acts, 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1, 1 Cor. 10:1-14, 1 and 2 Peter and numerous early Christian writings and Jewish sources. After a lengthy description of texts and passages where this pattern can be found, Wills suddenly makes the statement that “The background of the word of exhortation evidently lies in Greek rhetoric, where we find evidence of speeches with a similar structure.”104 Since he does not find any explicit description of rhetoric that fits his pattern, Wills supposes that the sermon form arose out of Greek rhetoric but does not make a direct correlation. In a response to Wills’ article, C. Clifton Black II forcefully demonstrates how the details of Wills’ research fit with Greco-Roman rhetoric.105 In sum, neither the structure nor the content of Acts 13:13-41 exhibits any significant deviation from the conventions of Greco-Roman rhetoric. On the contrary, to an impressive degree Paul’s oration at Pisidian Antioch hews closely to those classical norms, and the same could probably be ar103Ibid., p. 279. 104Ibid., p. 296. 105C. Clifton Black II, “The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon,” HTR 81 (1988): 1-18. 30 gued for the other sermons considered by Wills. Thus his intuition regarding the origin of the so-called “word of exhortation” in Greco-Roman oratory has been validated, but not his judgments concerning putative, innovative departures of that homiletical form from classical standards. The structure of these Hellenistic-Jewish and early Christian sermons is perfectly understandable in terms of the rhetorical conventions outlined in such ancient handbooks as Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria, and Cornificius’s Rhetorica ad Herennium.106 Although Black gives an excellent description of Greco-Roman rhetoric, he does not go far enough in dispelling Wills’ three-fold pattern. Black graciously upholds Wills’ basic thesis. He even tries to find his pattern in the funeral oration of Pericles found in Thucydides (2.34 - 46).107 Black forces this artificial pattern on to a speech that has its own structure. The triple cycle of the pattern that Black outlines is the regular structure for the ancient Funeral Oration.108 Black also accepts the dichotomy between speeches and sermons as if the religious setting of a speech makes it a different species. In fact, there are a number of scholars who call Hebrews a sermon just because it is religious rhetoric. Religious Rhetoric In classifying the literary type of Hebrews, there are some scholars who label Hebrews a sermon, but do not equate it with midrash or synagogue sermons. They recognize Hebrews as fitting in with Greco-Roman rhetoric but say it is a sermon or homily because of the religious context. This clouds the issue of literary type. Attridge, who does a superb job in balancing his discussion of concepts between the classical Greek world and the literature of early Judaism, fits within this category. Regarding the literary type of Hebrews, he writes, “As such it is clearly an epideictic oration, celebrating the significance of Christ and inculcating values that his followers ought to share. More specifically, the text is often identified as a sermon or homily.”109 106Ibid., pp. 10-11. 107Ibid., p. 14 (n. 41). 108Theodore C. Burgess, Epideictic Literature, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1902), pp. 146-57. 109Attridge,The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 14. 31 David Aune labels Hebrews as epideictic but goes on to say that the setting is congregational worship “confirming the homiletic character of Hebrews.”110 He calls Hebrews “A Hortatory Sermon.”111 His conclusion is that “Hebrews probably originated as an orally delivered sermon (or series of sermons) given literary form and distributed through the inclusion of an epistolary postscript.”112 By calling Hebrews a sermon, Aune has equivocated in his use of the term sermon. As noted above, Aune does not consider the “sermon” to have been originated until the third century. He uses “sermon” to refer to a literary form and to a speech that is religious in nature. There is already enough confusion related to the literary form of Hebrews without using the term sermon. Gunther Zuntz also describes Hebrews in this way. He places Hebrews in the category of encomiastic Greek and Latin rhetoric but then combines it with midrash. His conclusion is that “It is a midrash in rhetorical Greek prose — it is a homily.”113 While there is something attractive about settling for choice “D” in this multiple choice question of the literary type of Hebrews — the choice “All of the Above” —, not enough has been said regarding the characteristics of Hebrews that are found in Greek rhetoric. Too many times the rhetoric of the document is given over to Jewish midrash or a supposed Jewish synagogue style. The rhetoric of Hebrews needs further clarification in the light of Greco-Roman rhetoric. This will enable us to place chapter 7 in its proper rhetorical structure and argument. Hebrews as Greco-Roman Rhetoric It is not a difficult task to demonstrate that the literary characteristics of Hebrews are Hellenistic. The language itself shows this. Linguistic experts describe Hebrews as being elegant Greek. Aune, for example, puts it this way: “Written in excellent Atticizing Greek, 110Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, p. 213. 111Ibid., p. 212. 112Ibid., p. 213. 113Gunther Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, (London: 1953), p. 286. 32 Hebrews is the only New Testament composition fully deserving the label Kunstprosa, ‘euphonic prose’”. Spicq writes, “Non seulement Hébr. n’est pas l’oeuvre d’un ajnhvr ajgravmmato" kaiv ijdiwvth" (Act. IV,13), mais elle a été certainement rédigée par un homme rompu aux disciplines de la rhétorique et un orateur de métier.”114 This is evidenced in its vocabulary, grammar, style, and rhetorical devices.115 No one would disagree with this contention. It follows then that the structure is also of good Greek style. It is generally agreed that Hebrews is epideictic, that “the author urges the audience to continue to maintain values and opinions currently held.”116 Yet, Aune contends that “Despite the author’s rhetorical training and his epideictic intention, Hebrews is not structured in accordance with the typical patterns of epideictic or (the closely related) deliberative rhetoric.”117 Some scholars, however, have attempted to outline the book according to the parts of speech as delineated by the rhetorical handbooks.118 In reality, few speeches correspond to all of these parts, particularly epideictic speech. There is also the claim that its beginning is similar to prologues in Hellenistic rhetoric.119 The last chapter — if it is a part of the original text — is indicative of Greco-Roman letter writing. Its hortatory nature reflects the Greek protreptic tradition found in encomia and in letter writing. Stowers refers to Hebrews under the heading of “Letters of Exhortation and Advice”. A paraenetic letter is characterized by “precepts, examples, discussions of traditional moral topics (topoi), encouraging reminders of what the readers already know and have accomplished, and reasons for recommended behavior.”120 Stowers cautions that although Hebrews is horta- 114 L’Épitre aux Hébreux, 1:358. 115For discussions of the literary style of Hebrews, see Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 20-21; Spicq, L’Épitre aux Hébreux, 1:351-78; Friedrich Blass, “Die rhythmische Komposition des Hebräerbriefes,” ThStKr 75 (1902): 420-61. 116Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, p. 212. 117Ibid., p. 213. 118Keijo Nissilä, Das Hohepriestermotiv im Hebräerbrief: Eine exegetische Untersuchung, Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 33, (Helsinki: Oy Liiton Kirjapaino, 1979), pp. 24, 27; Hans Windisch, Der Hebräerbrief, (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1931), p. 8. 119Attridge, p. 37. 120Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, p. 96. 33 tory it “in general, does not resemble Greek and Latin hortatory letters because of its dominating exegetical argumentation.”121 The riddle of the literary genre and structure of Hebrews remains but it is not insoluble. The genre can be simply labeled as a speech in the classical tradition of Greece and Rome. Rhetorically it belongs to the type epideictic as has been mentioned above. Whether it was delivered in a religious setting or composed as a speech with an epistolary appendix is inconsequential to the present investigation. To say that Hebrews is epideictic speech says little if it has no impact on its literary structure. However, there is a feature of epideictic and encomiastic speech that is crucial for understanding the structure of Hebrews. A perusal of literature on Hebrews will show that the word “compare” and its derivatives are frequently used to describe the argumentation of Hebrews. This occurs even in authors who are describing how midrash functions in Hebrews.122 Several authors, however, do refer to comparison in a formal way. Attridge begins his section on Hebrews 3:1-6 by saying, “Thus this new segment of the text begins, as did the first, with a synkrisis or comparison.”123 He gives no description of what he means by the transliterated Greek term suvgkrisi". Aune also uses this term regarding Hebrews. In his opinion, “The rhetorical strategy of the author is based on a comparison (synkrisis) between the old and the new.”124 Again, there is no elaboration on what this term means beyond the simple translated meaning of comparison.125 In an unpublished paper, Lee Zachary Maxey briefly identifies several portions of Hebrews as containing synkrisis.126 The only person who describes what synkrisis is and how it functions in Hebrews does so in an 121Ibid., p. 97. 122Joseph. Fitzmyer, “‘Now this Melchizekek...’ (Heb 7:1),” CBQ 123Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 104. 124Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, p. 213. 125It has been noted above that James Reese discusses synkrisis in 25 (1963): 305ff. conjunction with the Wisdom of Solomon. 126Lee Zachary Maxey, “The Preacher as Rhetorician: The Rhetorical Structure and Design of Hebrews 12:4-13,” Unpublished paper for The Institute for Antiquity and Christianity at The Claremont Graduate School, p. 77-78. 34 unlikely book and in an unlikely place.127 Gunther Zuntz, in his “The Text of the Epistles”, discusses synkrisis in Appendix I. I ought perhaps to have said that one of the reasons, with me, for regarding Hebrws as, originally, a homily is the excessive use which it makes of the rhetorical method of synkrisis. This is a traditional device of encomiastic Greek and Latin rhetoric: the person, or object, to be praised is placed beside outstanding specimens of a comparable kind and his, or its, superiority (‘uJperochv’) urged (type: ‘Hercules overcame the lion, but you…’). The student of Hebrews who peruses, for example, Lucian’s ‘Praise of the fly’ can hardly fail to be amused by the close analogies of method in this humorous piece of writing; beginning with tosou'ton aJpalwvtera e[xousa ta; ptera; o{son ktl. (Luc. I), cf. Heb. i.4 tosouvtw/ kreivttwn genovmeno" ajggevlwn o{sw/ ktl. F. Focke (‘Synkrisis’, in Hermes, viii, 1923, 327ff., esp. 335 ff.) has put this traditional device of the rhetorical schools (see, for example, Quintilian ii.4.21) into a larger context. The classical paradigm, already with Aristotle, was Isocrates, Euagoras (esp. 34 ff. and 66: tivna ga;r …, cf. Heb. i.5). Aristotle himself (Rhet. i.9, 1368a 20) gives the recipes for this and other devices for ‘magnification’ (au[xhsi"). The rhetorical handbooks of the Roman period, such as Theon and Hermogenes, develop them; the schools practised them; writings such as Plutarch’s De virtute Alexandri and laudatory speeches like the Latin panegyrics, and Eusebius’ of Constantine, live by them. And so does Hebrews, in contrasting Jesus, and his Church, with angels, Moses, Melchizedek, high-priests, the synagogue, the ‘heroes of faith’, & c. At the same time, Hebrews is materially a midrash on, mainly, Pss. 94 and 109 and Jer. 31.30 ff. It is a midrash in rhetorical Greek prose — it is a homily.128 Zuntz has recognized the technical nature of comparison by identifying it as it was discussed in the rhetorical handbooks, practiced in the schools and described in such authors as Theon and Hermogenes. He has also identified the only extensive investigation of synkrisis, that of F. Focke.129 Most importantly, Zuntz details the many places in Hebrews where he thinks synkrisis is used. Although Zuntz has described synkrisis succinctly and accurately for the most part, there is much more that can be said. Building 127Cited by F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. F. F. Bruce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964), n. 111, p. xlviii. 128Gunther Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, (London: 1953), p. 286. 129F. Focke, “Synkrisis,” Hermes 58 (1923): 327-68. 35 upon the initial discussions of Zuntz and Focke, Hebrews can be shown to belong to the genre of synkrisis. In order to support this claim, it will be necessary to describe what synkrisis is and how it was used in Greco-Roman literature. The fact that the author is explicitly using synkrisis is demonstrated by his discussions of education through metaphor in 5:11 – 6:20. Following this is the Melchizedek comparison in which the author uses synkrisis in a way which closely parallels the descriptions in the progymnasmata and the examples in Plutarch’s Lives. 36 CHAPTER TWO: COMPARISON IN GRECO-ROMAN LITERATURE In the previous chapter we presented arguments against the various opinions concerning the genre of Hebrews. It was concluded that neither Jewish Midrash or Jewish/Christian Synagogue Homily are appropriate categories for Hebrews. Instead, the document is related to Hellenistic speech patterns; in particular, to the genre synkrisis (comparison). Hebrews, then, is a written speech (with an epistolary ending) of the epideictic type called comparison. In order to establish a basis for our thesis, we must show what comparison is and in what way people would have been educated in its use and how comparison was used in the rhetoric of the day. In this way we will establish that comparison was part of a clearly defined form and tradition both in education and rhetorical practice, that it had a widespread use, and that it functioned in a distinct way. Synkrisis in the Rhetorical Handbooks and the Progymnasmata The content of the rhetorical handbooks covers instruction which was mainly given in the secondary level of education. The progymnasmata were devoted to the elementary level. The rhetorical handbooks, however, come from an earlier period in history than the progymnasmata — the earliest extant progymnasmata dates from the late first century C.E . For this reason we will treat the handbooks first. The Rhetorical Handbooks We will examine three important rhetorical handbooks. Aristotle’s Ars Rhetorica is foundational for much of later rhetoric. As will be seen, Theon frequently alludes to the works of Aristotle in his Progymnasmata. The Rhetoric to Alexander (Rhetorica ad Alexandrum) continues this tradition. The third handbook is the extensive work of Quintilian, the Institutio Oratoria. 37 Aristotle’s Ars Rhetorica Aristotle’s impact in rhetoric can be compared to his importance in philosophy. The study of Aristotle’s Rhetoric lays the foundation for the teaching of rhetoric and, subsequently, the way in which orators perform their task. One of Aristotle’s most important and enduring contributions was the tripartite division of rhetoric based on three classes of listeners in relation to three kinds of time with three distinct goals. The following table summarizes Aristotle’s divisions based on his own criteria: Table: Three Divisions of Rhetoric Division Hearer Time Action Goal Political (deliberative) Judge Future urges expediency/harmfulness Forensic (judicial) Judge Past attacks/defends justice/injustice Ceremonial (epideictic) Observer Present praises/censures honorable/dishonorable What is important to notice about the ceremonial division, in which synkrisis will operate as a strategy, is that, according to Aristotle, it functions in similar ways to the other types of rhetoric. The time element, for instance, is more fluid for the epideictic speech. Aristotle notes that “The ceremonial orator is, properly speaking, concerned with the present, since all men praise or blame in view of the state of things existing at the time, though they often find it useful also to recall the past and to make guesses at the future (1358a 17–19).” The distinction may seem trivial; there are more important similarities. Although the listeners to a ceremonial speech are said to be observers, they also function as judges — they judge the duvnami" of the speaker. Not only, however, are they judges of the speaker, they also judge the persuasiveness of the speech itself as in the other types of speeches as Aristotle points out. 38 The use of persuasive speech is to lead to decisions. This is so even if one is addressing a single person and urging him to do or not to do something, as when we scold a man for his conduct or try to change his views: the single person is as much your ‘judge’ as if he were one of many; we may say, without qualification, that any one is your judge whom you have to persuade. Our principle holds good of ceremonial speeches also; the ‘onlookers’ for whom such a speech is put together are treated as the judges of it. (1391b 7–16) Ceremonial speeches are not merely for show, but are meant to persuade the audience; to treat them as judges regarding the praiseworthiness of the subject. Most importantly, the epideictic speech does more than persuade people to bestow honor. It too has a protreptic function. To praise a man is in one respect akin to urging a course of action. Consequently, whenever you want to praise any one, think what you would urge people to do; and when you want to urge the doing of anything, think what you would praise a man for having done (1367b 37; 1368a 7,8). Praising someone based on their character or their actions, in effect, is to urge the audience to act in the same way and to develop that characteristic. The epideictic speech, therefore, is not merely a “ceremonial speech of display.” In spite of the usual setting for this type of speech — whether festivals in which the city is praised or commemorations in which an orator conducts a funeral speech — or even oratorical competitions, the encomium served a larger purpose, a moral one. It had to do with the character and actions of people. In dealing with what is praiseworthy, it also dealt with the fundamental issue of what is good. The tools of persuasion, as outlined by Aristotle, are enthymemes (the rhetorical equivalent of syllogisms in logic) and examples. These are arguments used to demonstrate what is good and what is bad. In addition, propositions serve a comparative function. Further, all men, in giving praise or blame, in urging us to accept or reject proposals for action, in accusing others or defending themselves, attempt not only to prove the points mentioned but also to show that the good or the harm, the honour or disgrace, the justice or injustice, is great or small, either absolutely or relatively; and therefore it is plain that we must also have at our command propositions about greatness or smallness and the greater or the lesser-propositions both universal and particular. Thus, we 39 must be able to say which is the greater or lesser good, the greater or lesser act of justice or injustice; and so on (1359a 16–27). Therefore, Aristotle lays out, not only the criteria for determining what is good and virtuous, but also how to treat relative goodness. This is the substance of comparison. Aristotle takes this up in the section (1366a 23 – 1368a 38) on virtue and vice, the noble and the base — the objects of praise and blame. The encomium, whether it is focused on a human or divine being, an inanimate object, or an animal, attempts to persuade the audience to accept the virtuousness and nobility of the object. Aristotle describes and enumerates the virtues and their opposites. These virtues — justice, courage, temperance, magnificence, magnanimity, liberality, gentleness, prudence, wisdom — , when carried out, produce noble actions. Noble actions are in turn defined as those done merely for honor and not for money; those which are done for the benefit of others; those whose advantage is gained after death and not in one’s lifetime. Aristotle goes on to mention a few ways to decide whether one deed is nobler than another: those done by a naturally finer being; those done which give more pleasure to other people; those which are memorable; those which continue after death; those which are honorable; those which are exceptional; those which are possessed by one person; those which bring no personal profit. It is especially important to emphasize those things which the audience values as noble. In addition, actions are noble which are worthy of one’s ancestors and one’s past career. Along with this are the ancillary features such as good birth and education. These are all ways in which to construct the argument based on virtue and nobility. Aristotle includes with this discussion ways to heighten or amplify praise. This is carried out by directing attention to deeds for which the person is credited as being the only one or first one to have performed them; that he has performed the deed better than anyone else; that an action was done at an unexpected time; that a deed performed more than once 40 cannot be merely accounted as fortuitous; that an achievement is honored by special observances. Praise may be heightened by these means, but not by these means alone. Now Aristotle turns to a final way to make the case in epideictic speech — the use of comparison. The Greek text is quoted in full to introduce the terminology associated with comparison. ka]n mh; kaq- auJto;n eujporh'/", pro;" a[llou" ajntiparabavllein, o{per ÆIsokravth" ejpoivei dia; th;n ajsunhvqeian tou' dikologei'n. dei' de; pro;" ejndovxou" sugkrivnein: aujxhtiko;n ga;r kai; kalovn, eij spoudaivwn beltivwn. pivptei d- eujlovgw" hJ au[xhsi" eij" tou;" ejpaivnou": ejn uJperoch'/ gavr ejstin, hJ duJperoch; tw'n kalw'n: dio; ka]n mh; pro;" tou;" ejndovxou", ajlla; pro;" tou;" a[llou" dei' parabavllein, ejpeivper hJ uJperoch; dokei' mhnuvein ajrethvn. o{lw" de; tw'n koinw'n eijdw'n a{pasi toi'" lovgoi" hJ me;n au[xhsi" ejpithdeiotavth toi'" ejpideiktikoi'" ta;" ga;r pravxei" oJmologoumevna" lambavnousin, w{ste loipo;n mev geqo" periqei'nai kai; kavllo": (1368a 19–29) Again, if you cannot find enough to say of a man himself, you may pit him against others, which is what Isocrates used to do owing to his want of familiarity with forensic pleading. The comparison should be with famous men; that will strengthen your case; it is a noble thing to surpass men who are themselves great. It is only natural that methods of ‘heightening the effect’ should be attached particularly to speeches of praise; they aim at proving superiority over others, and any such superiority is a form of nobleness. Hence if you cannot compare your hero with famous men, you should at least compare him with other people generally, since any superiority is held to reveal excellence. And, in general, of the lines of argument which are common to all speeches, this ‘heightening of effect’ is most suitable for declamations, where we take our hero’s actions as admitted facts, and our business is simply to invest these with dignity and nobility. Aristotle has already elaborated on ways to praise the virtue and nobility of a person. He now introduces a way to fill out the speech. He describes this using the term ajntiparabavllein — it is a “setting over against” someone else. He adds that Isocrates used to do this. The reason for using comparison to amplify or heighten the effect of an epideictic speech, according to Aristotle, is because the aim of this type of speech is to prove superiority (uJperochv). In order to do this, one should compare (sugkrivnein) the subject with someone famous. This will strengthen the argument 41 since it is a noble thing to surpass a great person. If one cannot draw a comparison to a famous person — Aristotle here uses the synonym parabavllein — then at least make the comparison to people generally; this superiority still suggests excellence. This method, Aristotle concludes, is best suited for epideictic speech. Aristotle, as we have shown, constructed a classification of types of speech. There are ways of developing an argument concerning what is good and also what is the greater good. Epideictic speech, in particular, uses comparison to amplify the argument of one’s superiority over another in order to prove that person’s excellence. By this method the orator is able to persuade the audience in its judgment and to urge those listening to emulate that person’s character, to follow the same course of life, and to perform the same sort of actions. Rhetoric to Alexander Although this document has a dubious ascription and preface connecting it to Aristotle, it has several valuable insights for our discussion. The Rhetoric to Alexander — whether it be attributed to Anaximenes of Lampsacus or not — gives us an early (early third century B.C.E .) witness to the tradition begun by Aristotle and one of our first references to the elementary exercises. The Rhetoric to Alexander contains the tripartite division of rhetoric as seen in Aristotle’s Rhetoric. The author labels them parliamentary, ceremonial, and forensic: to; me;n dhmhgoriko;n, to; d- ejpideiktikovn, to; de; dikanikovn. (1421b 7–8). These genera are divided into seven species — two species per genera with an additional type called investigation. The two species of ceremonial speech are eulogy (ejgkwmiastikovn) and vituperation (yektikovn). Each species is discussed in turn. The discussion of eulogy or encomium begins with a definition: proairevsewn kai; pravxewn kai; lovgwn ejndovxwn au[xhsi" kai; mh; prosovntwn sunoikeivwsi". The work of encomium is to “maximize” good qualities and to 42 “minimize” the bad; vituperation is the opposite. It is necessary in eulogy to demonstrate that the person has, has done, or has caused to be done one of the praiseworthy qualities — things that are just, lawful, expedient, noble, pleasant and easy to accomplish. The author goes a step further to allowing that the person or object being praised is incidental to the resulting praiseworthy quality, that an action was done as a means to a personal benefit, or that the object of praise was an indispensable condition to the good (1425 b 36 – 1426 a 19). The author gives additional instruction on how to amplify one’s topic (1426 a 20 – 1426 b 22): actions have produced good results; introduce a favorable judgment; draw a contrast to the smallest example; mentioning the opposite; prove the agent acted intentionally, premeditatedly, repeatedly, continually, originally, willingly, and deliberately. The third item in the author’s list refers to comparison. The term he uses is ajntiparabavllein. This method of amplification takes the object of praise and “sets it over against” the smallest of items that are of the same class. By this means, one’s topic appears to be greater. The example the author gives is that when a man of medium height is next to someone who is shorter, that man will appear to be taller.130 In his treatment of the arrangement of the encomium, the author distinguishes the introduction, the genealogy, the stages of life — childhood (briefly), youth (achievements, character, habits), adulthood — , followed by a conclusion. Each section closes with maxims (gnwvmai) and enthymemes (ejnqumhvmata) along with a summary or recapitulation (palillogeivn). In addition to the usual methods for introductions, the author establishes the goal as aujtou;" i[sa kai; tou;" ejgkwmiazomevnou" kai; tou;" yegomevnou" ajpofanei'n pepragovta" (1440 b 11–13), “to prove that they have done deeds equal to those that are praised or blamed.” In other words, the encomiastic speech por130H. Rackham translates a subsequent phrase as “employing comparison” (p. 309). The text reads eijkavzonta sumbibavzein which is better translated “prove by inference.” 43 trays the individual as being great by means of demonstrating his equality to models of virtue. Virtue is the main concern of eulogy, virtues such as “wisdom, justice, courage, creditable habits.”131 Goods which are out of an individual’s control, such as “high birth, strength, beauty and wealth,” are appropriate for congratulations, but not praise. While this at first seems to be a point of primary importance and should be discussed after the introduction, the author contradicts his earlier statement by saying that genealogy should be the next topic in the eulogy following the introduction. The genealogy is an important basis for establishing praise and blame. The author shows how to handle genealogy to gain the best effect. The ancestors who will gain the most respect are to be emphasized. Even if there is no ancestral history, the orator should stress that everyone who is by nature virtuous is “well-born,” that many people are not worthy of their distinguished ancestors, and that the occasion is to praise the individual and not his ancestors. The main body of the speech goes on to trace the life of the individual through the stages of life: childhood, when the credit for their behavior should go to others; early manhood, with his achievements, his character, and his habits; and his adulthood, including his justice, wisdom, and courage. Each of these sections ends with maxims and enthymemes along with recapitulation; this serves ultimately as the conclusion. In all of this, the key term is amplification. One of the ways to amplify is discussed in the section on early manhood. dei' kai; tou' tou' 30). 131H. de; kai; eJtevrwn nevwn ejvdovxou" pravxei" paristavnai uJperbavllein deiknuvnai ta;" tou'de ta;" ejkeivnwn, me;n eJtevrou tajlavcista tw'n uJparcovntwn levgonta, d- uJpo; sou' ejpainoumevnou ta; mevgista (1441 a 28– Rackham, p. 405. 44 You must also compare the distinguished achievements of other young men and show that they are surpassed by his, specifying the smallest achievements of the other youth and the biggest exploits of the one you are praising.132 According to the author of the Rhetoric to Alexander, it is necessary to draw a comparison in order to magnify the person who is being praised. The language is worth noticing. The word translated “compare,” parivsthmi, refers to the action of placing the two individuals beside each other for examination. In addition to this, the achievements of the young man are “placed above,” uJperbavllein, the other. The root word -bavllw is normally found in contexts of comparison with parav with the meaning of “placing side by side.” But in this context it is found highlighting the nature of comparison in which one surpasses another. The particles are also of interest. In speaking of the way in which the orator may be able to draw the comparison by focusing on the smallest of the other person and the greatest of the person being praised, the author makes use of the mevn…dev construction. The opening particle mevn initiates the first part of the comparison, while dev concludes the comparison: “on the one hand” … “on the other hand.” As we will see, this construction plays an important part in the formulation of comparisons as a means of amplification. The topic of amplification is an important one in this rhetorical handbook, as in others. What is particularly significant is a section in which the author is giving instruction on how to find material for speeches. The author states that the readers know how to compose the speeches and can be effective if they apply what they have learned. a]n ejqivswmen hJma'" aujtou;" kai; gumnavswmen ajnalambavnein aujta;" kata; ta; progumnavsmata, pollh;n eujporivan kai; gravfonte" kai; levgonte" ejx aujtw'n e{xomen (1436 a 24–27). If we habituate and train ourselves to repeat them on the lines of our preparatory exercises, they will supply us with plenty of matter both in writing and speaking.133 132Ibid., 133Ibid., p. 409. p. 375. 45 The author directs his readers — Alexander the Great, supposedly — to make it a habit of following the guidelines as they were taught. In his words, kata' ta' progumnavsmata. This is the first occurrence of this term in our literature.134 It will become, as we shall see, a technical term for the elementary exercises. In spite of the dubious claim to having been penned by Aristotle to Alexander, this work does serve as an early witness to the Greek tradition. Comparison was recognized to be a part of encomium. Since comparison functioned as a means of amplification, it is likely that it already was a part of the elementary exercises. Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria The fact that Quintilian is mainly interested in judicial rhetoric accounts for brevity in treating encomium and synkrisis; what he does write is due to his role as an educator. His comparatively extensive treatment of education in the Roman empire at the end of the first century and his detailed analysis of rhetoric has made an important contribution to the western world. It is also the case that “Quintilian remains by far the most detailed and authoritative discussion of progymnasmata (exercises) outside the Progymnasmata (textbooks)….”135 During his discussion of the duties of the grammaticus, Quintilian includes as a third area of concern “certain rudiments of oratory,” quaedam dicendi primordia. (Inst. I 9,1).136 The emphasis is on quaedam, for Quintilian is developing an argument for “certain” exercises to be taught by the grammaticus, while others which are more difficult 134As Kennedy notes, this term “may be a later intrusion” into the text (Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times, p. 55). Usener suggests the emendation prostavgmata (H. Rackham, p. 374, n. 4). Fuhrmann suggests that the entire phrase ajnalambavnein aujta;" kata; ta; progumnavsmata, is an interpolation noting “haec verba ab auctoris temporibus aliena sunt (Fuhrmann, Anaximenis Ars Rhetorica, p. 59, n. 4).” 135Ian H. Henderson, “Quintilian and the Progymnasmata,” A&A XXXVII (1991): 89–90. 136Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, trans. H. E. Butler, vol 1, Loeb Classical Library, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1921), p. 157. Later Quintilian calls it prima rhetorices rudimenta (II 4.5). 46 and more applicable to rhetoric are reserved for the rhetor at an advanced level.137 This accounts for Quintilian’s succinctness. On one hand, Quintilian’s brevity makes it clear that he is not intending to contribute to the text-book genre of Progymnasmata, in which exercises and their elaborations are defined, sub-divided and exemplified. Instead, his interest is to distribute the progymnasmata between the grammaticus and the rhetor: only a few of the most elementary exercises, the primordia, are left primarily to the former and even these few are not treated progymnasmatically. On the other hand, Quintilian is inescapably alluding to the progymnasmatic tradition, though he is addressing the division of labour, a question to which early literary progymnasmatists do not directly refer.138 That Quintilian is writing from within the progymnasmatic tradition is made clear by comparing his order of exercises with those of the progymnasmatists. Henderson illustrates the point in his Table 1.139 Quintilian’s order follows closely that of Hermogenes, Aphthonius, and Nicolaus. Theon is an unusual case, as will be shown below. It is Henderson’s contention that , although Theon is the earliest extant progymnasmatist, his order is actually a diversion from the standard.140 In his words, “Quintilian is therefore strong evidence for dating the establishment of a relatively fixed syllabus earlier than the extant Progymnasmata and other scattered references would otherwise demand.”141 Quintilian first groups together the writing of fables (fabellae) and then the writing of narratives (I 9.1–3). Along with narrative writing is the practice of three types of narration: aphorisms (sententiae), moral essays (chriae), and characterization (ethologiae/aetiologia). The grammaticus gives examples for the students to follow. The subject matter comes directly from their reading. By practicing these exercises the students will develop habits of learning and, more important than gaining a writing style, according to Quintilian, is the increase in knowledge (I 9.6). 137cf. F. H. Colson, “Quintilian 1.9 and the ‘Chria’ in Ancient Education,” CR 35 (1921): 151; Henderson, pp. 87,88. 138Henderson, p. 87. 139Ibid., p. 93. 140See the full discussion of the order of Theon below. 141Henderson, p. 94. 47 A lengthy discussion of the foundation of knowledge, the ejgkuvklio" paideiva, interrupts the description of writing narratives. Quintilian returns to this when he begins relating in what areas the teacher of rhetoric should give instruction (II 4.1): “For in my opinion it is most desirable that we should commence with something resembling the subjects already acquired under the teacher of literature (II 4.1).”142 He refers to this as the “primas in docendo partes rhetorum.” The first area is, therefore, narrative. Whereas the grammaticus teaches poetic narrative, the rhetor teaches historical narrative. After a digression on teaching principles, Quintilian returns to the topic of teaching narrative (II 4.15). Joined to (subiungo) instruction in narrative composition is the task of refuting (destruendi/ajnaskeuhv) & confirming (confirmandi/kataskeuhv) (II 4.18). The succession from one stage to the next, even within the transfer from the grammaticus to the rhetor, builds upon an explicit progression of experience. The student now is to proceed to more important exercises (II 4.20): laudare claros viros et vituperare improbos. Praise and vituperation are profitable, Quintilian states, because both the ingenium and the animus gain from the practice. This knowledge, it is clear, will be instrumental for the would-be lawyer in whatever judicial case (causa) he may participate. The next paragraph concerns comparison. Hinc illa quoque exercitatio subit comparationis, uter melior uterve deterior; quae quanquam versatur in ratione simili, tamen et duplicat materiam et virtutum vitiorumque non tantum naturam, sed etiam modum tractat. (II 4.21) From this there also follows the exercise of comparison: which of two is better or which of two is inferior. Although it is engaged in a similar idea, it nevertheless both repeats subject-matter and deals with not only the nature of virtue and vice but also degree. (trans. mine) 142Butler, p. 225. 48 Just as each exercise — this is the first one he has referred to as exercitatio — has closely followed from one to the next, so does comparison. In fact, comparison is so interconnected with praise and blame that Quintilian seems to be discussing it within his treatment of praise and blame: he concludes this section with “But the method to be followed in panegyric and invective will be dealt with in its proper place, as it forms the third department of rhetoric.”143 Comparison deals with a ratione simili to praise and blame in that it too deals with virtue and vice. Quintilian defines comparison simply as uter melior uterve deterior. There are, then, two types. These coincide with the positive and negative of praise and blame. In the panegyric type, the purpose is to show which of two items is better than the other. Conversely, in the invective type, the goal is to prove which of two is inferior to the other. Comparison differs from praise and blame in two ways. First, there is a repetition of materia. The materia concerning one item is in effect repeated in the discussion of the second item. Quintilian does not elaborate as to the content of the materia. The second difference is that, while comparison also deals with virtue and vice, it also is concerned with modus. Comparison weighs the measure or degree of virtue and vice. It is involved in determining which is melior or deterior. In other words, the exercitatio comparationis teaches students to establish by the means of repeating details concerned with virtue and vice in a way similar to praise and blame, which of two is better or worse than another. Although Quintilian discusses comparison in connection with praise and blame, he does not include comparison as part of his discourse on praise and blame speeches (III 7) as did others. Quintilian does, however, include comparison, in a rudimentary fashion, in his treatment of deliberative oratory (III 8.34) and in forensic (IV 10.91). Other instances of the word comparatio in Quintilian are in reference to creating metaphors. 143Ibid., p. 235. 49 Synkrisis in the Progymnasmata As we have seen, rhetoricians discussed the use of comparison within epideictic speech. Young students, in fact, were taught how to compose a comparison. The Progumnavsmata (Elementary Exercises)144 which date from the first century C.E . to the fifth provide us with the formal standard taught to students who were at the advanced level of the school of grammar or beginning studies with a rhetor. Since the key to rhetorical training was imitation, the progymnasmata contained a series of graduated exercises that showed the student how to copy the classical style. Therefore, the form which the prospective young rhetoricians learned gives us a good indication of what was already being practiced as well as what they were taught to practice themselves. The first of these is the Progymnasmata of Aelius Theon. Aelius Theon The earliest extant Progymnasmata belongs to Aelius Theon of Alexandria.145 Although we can be reasonably confident of the authorship of the text, we are on more uncertain grounds in dating the text. The argument turns on whether it is thought Theon precedes or follows Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria. U. Wilamowitz argued for a date before Quintilian.146 It was W. Stegemann’s147 opinion that Quintilian refers to this author as the “Stoic Theon.”148 Consequently he dated Theon prior to Quintilian, around 50 C.E . I. Lana has presented a detailed discussion of the possible parallels between Theon and Quintilian.149 While some of the 150 parallels are general in character, there is some evi144The Greek text with translation of the sections on Synkrisis from the Progymnasmata are provided in the appendixes. 145This attribution is supported by the Suda and is unanimous in the manuscript tradition. 146Ulrich von Wilamowitz, Hermes 35 (1900): 6–7. 147W. Stegemann, “Theon,” Real-Encyclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. A. F. Pauly, G. Wissowa, W. Kroll and K. Mittelhaus, Zweite Reihe, (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1934), 2: 2036–2039. 148“Hoc est pãrison, ut plerisque placuit; Theon Stoicus pav r ison existimat quod sit e membris non dissimilibus (Institutio Oratio 9.3.76).” 149I. Lana, Quintiliano, Il “Sublime,” e gli “Exercizi Preparatori” di Elio Teone, (Torino: Universita di Torino, 1951). 50 dence to suggest this early date.150 However, G. Kennedy and S. Bonner both place Theon after Quintilian proposing a date closer to the end of the first century.151 Whether one accepts the early date of around 50 or the later date around the end of the first century, the Progymnasmata of Theon is close enough to the time period of Hebrews to be significant for an understanding of comparison in Hebrews. Synopsis of Theon’s Progymnasmata While Theon recognized the primacy of philosophical training in the ejgkuvklio" paideiva, he also considered the elementary exercises to be a prerequisite for the rhetori- cian (I.1–33) or for anyone engaged in writing. tau'ta me;n ou\n pareqevmhn, ouj nomivzwn me;n a{panta ei\nai pa'sin ajrcomevnoi" ejpithvdeia, ajll- i{na hJmei'" eijdw'men, o{ti pavnu ejsti;n ajnagkai'on hJ tw'n gumnasmavtwn a[skhsi" ouj movnon toi'" mevllousi rJhtoreuvein, ajlla; kai; ei[ ti" h] poihtw'n h] logopoiw'n h] a[llwn tinw'n lovgwn duvnamin ejqevlei metaceirivzesqai. e[sti ga;r tau'ta oiJonei; qemevlia pavsh" th'" tw'n lovgwn ijdeva" (II.138–143) So then, these subjects I have set forth not because I think that they are all suitable to every beginner, but in order that we might see that practice in the exercises is absolutely necessary, not only for those who intend to be orators, but also if someone wants to be a poet or prose-writer, or if he wants to acquire facility with some other form of writing. For these exercises are, so to speak, the foundation stones for every form of writing.152 In addition, Theon elaborates on the usefulness of comparison for the three types of rhetoric, the forensic, encomiastic, and deliberative. 150J. Butts, The Progymnasmata 151George A. Kennedy, The Art of Theon, pp. 3–6. of Persuasion in Greece, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 270; Stanley F. Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome: From the elder Cato to the younger Pliny, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), p. 251. 152Butts, p. 155. 51 ajlla; mh;n kai; to; th'" sugkrivsew" guvmnasma kai; ejn toi'" dikanikoi'" lovgoi" ejsti; crhvsimon, sugkrinovntwn hJmw'n h[toi ta; ajdikhvmata toi'" ajdikhvmasin, h] ta; eujergethvmata toi'" eujergethvmasin, oJmoivw" de; kai; ejn toi'" ejgkwmivoi", ajntiparaballovntwn hJmw'n ta;" eujpragiva": ejn de; tai'" sumboulai'" kai; pavnu e[kdhlo" hJ wjfevleia. peri; ga;r to; aiJretwvterovn eijsin oiJ tw'n sumbouleuovntwn lovgoi. (I.53–59) Now then, the exercise of comparison is also useful in forensic speeches as well, since we compare either wrongs with wrongs, or benefits with benefits; and similarly with encomia since we place good deeds side by side. And in deliberating, the benefit of the comparison is quite obvious, for the speeches of the deliberators concern the preferable course of action.153 In this way, Theon establishes the overall applicability for the progymnasmata in the education of the young no matter in what type of rhetoric they may be engaged. J. Butts has recreated the original order of Theon, since the sequence of the exercises had become interchanged in the Greek manuscript tradition. However, both the internal evidence of the Progymnasmata — Theon occasionally refers to sections which precede and follow — and the external evidence of the Armenian manuscripts help to rearrange the exercises into their proper order: Chreia, Fable, Narrative, Commonplace, Description, Speech-in-Character, Encomium, Comparison, Thesis, Law. In addition, it is surmised that originally the document included sections on Reading, Oral Presentation, Paraphrase, Elaboration, and Rebuttal, but these have become lost to us in the Greek tradition; all but the last one does exist in the Armenian manuscripts. Analysis of Theon’s Synkrisis Theon begins his section on Synkrisis in his usual way with a definition: Suvgkrisiv" ejsti lovgo" to; bevltion h] to; cei'ron paristav". (X.1). There are, then, two types of comparison: one that shows which is the better of two good things and another that shows which is the worse of two bad things.154 153Ibid., p. 103. 154This seems to be his meaning based on X.44–46. 52 There are also two groups for comparison, proswvpwn te kai; pragmavtwn (“characters and subjects”) (X.3). Theon gives the example of Ajax and Odysseus for characters and the example of wisdom and courage for subjects. The same method of comparison is used for both since the topics for comparison involve those items that can be classified as subjects. Theon identifies the two areas of comparison as actions (pra'cei") and whatever is a good (ajgaqov"). What follows is the method for comparing one thing with another. At X.47 Theon begins a discussion of comparing several items. Before discussing the method, Theon first explains that both items set forth for comparison should be similar.155 There is no need — in fact, it is laughable — to compare matters that differ greatly. Instead, one compares things that are nearly the same and about which there is disagreement as to the superiority of one over another. Theon first deals with the comparison (ajntiparabavllw) of characters (X.13 – X.33) following the pattern mentioned in X.6–7, but in a reverse order. The first area involves the ajgaqav (X.13 – 17) — the common topics of encomium — and then the pra'cei" (X.18 – 33). Here Theon only mentions a few of the topics, referring the reader to the previous chapter “On Encomium” for the rest. In that section, Theon lists the items for praise according to the peripatetic tripartite division of “goods,” the ones connected with the soul, those with the body, and those which are external (IX.11–24). Table 1 lists these “goods” as found in the section on encomium along with the summary list as Theon presents it in the section on comparison (the items are numbered giving the order as 155Apparently Theon, at X.8–12, borrows substantially from Aristotle’s Topica 116a, lines 3 – 9. prw'ton de; diwrivsqw o{ti th;n skevyin poiouvmeqa oujc uJpe;r tw'n polu; diestwvtwn kai; megavlhn pro;" a[llhla diafora;n ejcovntwn ( oujdei;" ga;r ajporei' povteron hJ eujdaimoniva h] oJ plou'to" aiJretwvteron) , ajlluJpe;r tw'n suvneggu", kai; peri; w|n ajmfisbhtou'men potevrw/ dei' prosqevsqai ma'llon, dia; to; mhdemivan oJra'n tou' eJtevrou pro;" to; e{teron uJperochvn. dh'lon ou\n ejpi; tw'n toiouvtwn o{ti deicqeivsh" uJperoch'" h] mia'" h] pleiovnwn sugkataqhvsetai hJ diavnoia o{ti tou'tejsti;n aiJretwvteron, oJpovteron tugcavnei aujtw'n uJperevcon. 53 found in this section). Theon includes with his topics for comparison the “goods” which are external and those which are bodily. 54 Table 1: Tripartite Division of “Goods” in Theon EXTERNAL Encomium Comparison BODY SOUL Encomium Encomium eujgevneia eujgevneia1 uJgeiva frovnimo" noble birth noble birth health prudent paideiva paideiva2 ijscuv" swvfrwn education education strength self-controlled filiva kavllo" ajndrei'o" friendship beauty courageous dovxa dovxa5 eujaisqhsia divkaio" reputation reputation quick sensibility just ajrchv ajrchv4 o{sio" public office public office pious plou'to" ejleuvqero" wealth free eujtekniva eujtekniva3 megalovfrwn good children good children magnanimous eujqanasiva easy death h tou' swvmato" diavqesin6 bodily disposition Next, comparison is to be made of the actions of the two characters. The rhetorician (or would-be rhetorician) should choose (prokrivnw) which actions meet the proper criteria. Theon gives ten criteria for choosing which actions are better (X.18–26). 1. The More Noble 2. The Causes of More Numerous and Greater Good Actions156 156J. Butts reads the text “ta;" kallivou" kai; ta;" ajgaqw'n pleiovnwn kai; meizovnwn aijtiva",” without intervening punctuation. His translation is “those which are more noble and the reasons for the numerous and greater blessings,... (J. Butts, p. 497). I prefer to take it as two clauses, “the more noble (actions), and the causes of the more numerous and greater good (actions)” (cf. Waltz, p. 232). 55 3. The More Reliable 4. The More Enduring 5. Those Done at the Proper Time 6. Those Which Prevented Great Harm 7. Those Done with a Motive 8. Those which Few Have Done 9. Those which Took Great Effort 10. Those which were Done when beyond age or ability Comparison not only presents the positive comparison but also the negative. Theon, however, warns against defending against false accusations (diabolhv). Once again he refers the reader to what he said in the previous section on encomium: ta;" de; diabola;" h] ouj dei' levgein: ajnavmnhsi" ga;r givnetai tw'n aJmarthmavtwn: h] wJ" oi|ovn te lavqra kai; ajpokekrummevnw", mh; lavqwmen ajpologivan ajntejgkwmivou poihvsante": ajpologei'sqai me;n ga;r proshvkei peri; tw'n ajdikei'n aijtivan ejcovntwn, ejpainei'n de; tou;" ejpi; ajgaqw'/ tini diafevronta" (IX.81–86). One should either not mention false accusations at all (since memory attaches itself to misdeeds) or as occasion allows mention them imperceptibly and unobtrusively, lest we inadvertently compose a defense instead of encomia. For it is proper to give a defense concerning those who are charged with wrongdoing, whereas it is proper to praise those who excel in some good quality.157 Although is not beneficial to spend too much time defending against false accusations made against the superior individual being compared, it is appropriate to disparage (diasuvrein) and ridicule (cleuavzein) the other character. Comparison, nevertheless, should focus on the positive aspect of actions rather than misdeeds. Theon takes up the comparison of subjects at X.34. The same approach can be taken with subjects as with characters by way of analogy. In the same way that one cites the ancestry of a person, one can say, for instance, that health is a daughter of Apollo. Just 157J. Butts, p. 477. 56 as a character is praised for the city in which he lived, honey, for example, can be lauded as coming from the best city. This is the way to compare subjects along the same lines as the characters. The second step in comparison also applies to subjects. Characters were compared as to their actions. Subjects, Theon writes, are also compared by discussing the benefits that result from each of the two subjects placed side by side. Therefore, subjects can be compared by the same method as characters. In X.44–46 Theon makes the point that comparison is not only meant to show which is best of two items; it is also meant to expose which is the worst of two items that are to be avoided. To put it simply, comparison reveals which is the best of two good things or which is the worst of two bad things. Theon next turns to the issue of comparing several items with several other items. There are two ways of making this comparison. The first (X.49–65) is based on taking the extreme cases on either side and making the comparison. In this way the whole class is compared to the other. Butts refers to this as the paradigmatic argument.158 The second way (X.66–75) of making comparison of several items is based on what Butts calls the plurality argument.159 In the previous example Theon illustrates his point with the case of someone wanting to argue that the feminine class is more courageous than the male. If Tomyris is more courageous than Cyrus, then the feminine class is more courageous than the male. Theon now returns to that illustration to say that, just because one or two women are more courageous than men does not mean that women are more courageous than men. There are, in his estimation, more courageous males than females. The final section (X.76–80) contains a word about a double method for comparative speeches. 158See 159See note 22, p. 510. note 24, p. 511. 57 h] ga;r uJpe;r eJkavstou tw'n sugkrinomevnwn ijdiva/ tina; lovgon diexeleusovmeqa: h] e{na par- ajmfoi'n, qavteron prokrivnonte" (X.76–78) … either we run through in detail a separate speech on behalf of each of the items being compared or we will run through a single speech about both, preferring one or the other item,…160 In one method, the writer discusses the topics for comparison about one character or subject and then does the same thing for the other character or subject. The other method results in a single speech that discusses the topics in succession alternating between one character or subject then the other. Hermogenes Analysis of progymnasmata from later rhetoricians serves to amplify the evidence concerning comparison. There can be no doubt about the teaching of comparison in the schools and its use in rhetoric during the latter half of the first century — the time of the writing of Hebrews. In spite of the fact that Hermogenes and the other authors of progymnasmata come from a later date, their writings are still valuable for an indication of how comparison was being taught in the schools and that this tradition was widespread across the empire. Hermogenes is dated in the second century to the third and identified with the city of Tarsus. Although not considered a major school in the empire, Tarsus was no “rhetorical backwater.”161 Strabo could refer to it as being devoted to “the whole round of education in general” (Geography, xiv.5.13). Kennedy calls Hermogenes “the greatest rhetorician of the second century.”162 Hermogenes, who taught in the cities of the Ionian coast, is known for his works Peri; stavsewn, Peri; euJrevsew", Peri; meqovdou deinovthto", Peri; ijdew'n, and of course his Progumnavsmata.163 160Butts, p. 503. 161Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, p. 9. 162Ibid. 163For the standard Greek text, see Hermogenes, “Progymnasmata,” Hermogenis Opera, ed. H. Rabe, (Leipzig: Teubner, 1913 (Reprint, Stuttgart: 1969)), 1–27. English translations are that of C. S. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic, (New York: Macmillan, 1928), pp. 23–38. 58 Synopsis of Hermogenes’ Progymnasmata The order of exercises in Hermogenes (myth, narrative, chreia, gnome, refutation & confirmation, commonplace, encomium, comparison, characterization, ecphrasis, thesis, law) follows a systematic graduation of exercises. He explains this in the opening lines of his section on myth. To;n mu'qon prw'ton ajxiou'si prosavgein toi'" nevoi", diovti ta;" yuca;" aujtw'n pro;" to; bevltion rJuqmivzein duvnatai: (Hermogenes, Progumnavsmata, 1.1–2) Myth is the approved thing to set first before the young, because it can lead their minds into better measures.164 Butts has theorized that the Greek manuscripts of Theon reflect a harmonization to the order established by Hermogenes. In the Greek manuscripts of Theon, the original order of the chapters was subverted because the work of Theon was transformed from a treatment of the subject intended for teachers into a school text intended for students.165 Hermogenes’ work represents this change towards being a text for students. His comment at the beginning of the section on Narrative supports this argument for reordering: e[nioi mevntoi th;n creivan e[taxan pro; touvtou. (Hermogenes, Progumnavsmata, 2.2–3).166 The word e[nioi, however, seems to imply a tradition instead of an individual. In spite of this, Lana contends that Hermogenes is dependent on Theon at several points.167 It is this repeated allusion to previous works and the possible dependence on Theon that places Hermogenes within a broader context of elementary education. The text of Hermogenes gives us a good idea of how the exercises were being taught in the schools; that these exercises were applicable to the activity of people involved in writing and giving 164Baldwin, p. 23 165Butts, p. 20. 166In the section on Ecphrasis, Hermogenes justifies his inclusion of ecphrasis as a separate exercise in spite of those he refers to as tw'n ajkribestevrwn tine;". Some of the ones who are more “strict” or “precise” do not include the exercise separately, though others of no less stature number this exercise among the others (10.29–36). 167I. Lana, Progimnasmi di Elio Teone, (Torino: Universita di Torino, 1959), pp. 129, 141–146. 59 speeches in the past; and that these exercises and the practices they represent were widespread in the empire.168 Therefore, it is not anachronistic to discuss comparison in Hermogenes in connection with Hebrews. Analysis of Hermogenes’ Synkrisis As in Theon’s Progymnasmata, Hermogenes discusses comparison as being a component of encomium. This exercise precedes comparison. The topics for encomium are: Race (e[qno"); City (povli"); Family (gevno"); Birth (gevnesi"); Nurture (trofhv); Training (ajgwghv) as in train and educate; Body as in Beauty (kalov"), Stature (mevga"), Agility (tacuv"), Might (ijscurov"); Soul as in Justice (divkaio"), Self-control (swvfrwn), Wisdom (sofov"), Manliness (ajndrei'o"); Pursuits (ejpithdeuvmata); Deeds (pravxei"); External resources (ta; ejktov") as in Relatives (suggenei'"), Friends (fivloi), Possessions (kthvmata,), Household (oijkevtai), Fortune (tuvch), etc.; Time (crovno") as in Length of life, Manner of death, Cause of death, Circumstances of death, and Events following death (7.22–51). Hermogenes gives with these topics a brief statement of explanation. After copiously listing the encomiastic topics, Hermogenes makes this important statement: megivsth de; ejn toi'" ejgkwmivoi" ajformh; hJ ajpo; tw'n sugkrivsewn, a}" tavxei", wJ" a]n oJ kairo;" uJfhgh'tai (7.51–53).169 It must be kept in mind that the exercises are not necessarily speech forms themselves, but exercises in the various elements that make up rhetorical forms. Any one of the exercises may constitute a unit by itself or may be contained within a larger body of work. 168Robert Kaster makes this point: “His [the grammarian’s] instruction was standardized, but by shared conventions, not by statute. Because of the tradition of his profession and, hence, because of his clientele’s expectations, a grammarian’s classroom in Bordeaux would probably have looked much like its counterpart in Rome or Carthage, and a grammarian’s classroom in Alexandria would probably have looked much like one in Antioch or Nicomedia.” (Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity, p. 44.) There were local variations in the level of instruction in less prestigious institutions (p. 45.). See also his “Notes on ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ Schools in Late Antiquity,” TAPA 113 (1983): 323–46. 169“But the greatest opportunity in encomia is through comparisons, which you will draw as the occasion may suggest” (Baldwin, p. 32). 60 Comparison is an aspect of encomium. Hermogenes thinks it is a very important part of encomiastic speech. The term ajformh; could be translated by the modern expression “springboard,” something that gives a “starting point” for continued discussion. Hermogenes describes comparison, as others before him, as a means of amplification: pareivlhptai de; kai; ejn ejgkwmivw/ kata; suvgkrisin hJmw'n aujxovntwn ta; crhstav.170 Comparison is such a part of encomiastic speech that it led Hermogenes to the conclusion that it did not need to be separate from encomium. He does, nevertheless, include a discussion regarding comparison since, as he says, others have made it such (8.2–4). Comparison, Hermogenes continues, should follow the encomiastic topics (8.8). He cites several examples from the list he gave under encomium. It is clear from his language that he prefers the method of making comparisons in which the topics are covered one by one with comparisons drawn between the two objects of comparison successively. This also was the preference of Theon. Hermogenes classifies the objects of comparison into three areas (9.9–18). The first he leaves nameless, but must be referring to people (8.9–12). The second category (8.12–14) is the comparison of plants — also given as a topic for encomium in the preceding section of the Progymnasmata. The third category (8.15–17) is the same as Theon’s second of two divisions, the comparison of pravgmata. This comparison is carried out by describing who first practiced the deeds and by comparing those who practiced them with regard to the qualities of “soul” and “body.” Hermogenes echoes the statement of Theon that the same method be applied to all cases (8.17–18). There are three main types of comparisons (8.19–24). The first type is a comparison of equals. In this type the items being set side-by-side are shown to be equal either in all topics or only in several. The second type of comparison involves two good items, one 170“…and also under encomium [comparison has been included] as a means of amplifying good deeds” (Baldwin, p. 33). 61 of which is preferred over the other. In the third type there is clearly censure of one item and praise of the other. Hermogenes gives one other type of comparison — a comparison demonstrating a lesser item to be equal to the better (8.24–30). He gives the example of Heracles and Odysseus. This type of comparison is very demanding. The adjectives used to describe the requirements are extremely forceful (bivaio", deinovth", gorgovth"). According to Hermogenes, it is necessary to make the transitions swift (dia; to; dei'n taceiva" poiei'n ta;" metabavsei"). In his Progumnavsmata and in his brief description of comparison, Hermogenes gives us the following insights. First, there is a tradition of writing about these exercises with which Hermogenes interacts. Secondly, comparison is integrally related to encomium in that it appears as a part of encomium and also, when considered separately, follows the encomiastic topics as the two objects for comparison are placed sideby-side. Thirdly, there are various types of comparisons based on their comparative value. This necessarily involves comparison in persuasion as the one that is considered better is shown in a more favorable light than the other. Aphthonius No discussion of the progymnasmata would be complete — in spite of the late date — without including the works of Libanius and Aphthonius, both of whom had connections with the rhetorical school in Syrian Antioch. Coming at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, they represent an added development in the tradition of the progymnasmata: the addition of model exercises. This innovation had two important contributions. In the first place, it presents us with examples of what was being taught — the model and standard the students were 62 striving after. In Theon and Hermogenes we only get instruction about the exercises. In the texts of Libanius and his student Aphthonius we can read the exercises themselves.171 That these model exercises were considered derivative of the previous works of Theon and Hermogenes is attested by the second contribution — the posterity of the progymnasmata. It seems that the elementary exercises of Theon and Hermogenes were supplemented — and in the case of Hermogenes, supplanted — by the model exercises of Libanius and Aphthonius. In almost all of the manuscripts of Hermogenes, the Progymnasmata of Aphthonius appears with the rhetorical works of Hermogenes instead of his own. In the case of Theon, the model exercises of Libanius came to be included with the Progymnasmata in the editio princeps of 1520 (in two of the four copies) and in subsequent editions such as that of Joachim Kaemmerer (Camerarius) in 1541. In the estimation of D. Clark, Theon could not succeed without the model themes and Aphthonius was the most popular in antiquity and in the Renaissance because of his inclusion of model exercises.172 Synopsis of Aphthonius’ Progymnasmata Aphthonius covers the following exercises: Fable, Tale, Chreia, Proverb, Refutation, Confirmation, Commonplace, Encomium, Vituperation, Comparison, Characterization, Description, Thesis, Proposal of Law. As has been noted above, Aphthonius is unique among the extant progymnasmatic authors by his addition of model exercises. No doubt this was a practice which he learned from his teacher Libanius. Each of the exercises has at least one example. The examples given for encomium are important for the study of comparison. Aphthonius gives the divisions of encomium as exordium, genus, education, achieve171Libanius presents five model exercises of comparison: Suvgkrisi" ÆAcillevw" kai; Diomhvdou"; Suvgkrisi" Ai[anto" kai; ÆAcillevw"; Suvgkrisi" Dhmosqevnou" kai; Aijscivnou; Suvgkrisi" nautiliva" kai; gewrgiva"; Suvgkrisi" ajgrou' kai; povlew" (Libanius, Progymnasmata, ed. R. Foerster, Libanii opera, (Leipzig: Teubner, 1915), 24–571). L. Clark, “The Rise and Fall of Progymnasmata in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Grammar Schools,” SM 19 (1952): 261. 172Donald 63 ments, comparison, and epilogue. Comparison is used “in order to infer a greater position for the one being praised through the process of placing side by side.”173 Since vituperation is essentially the same as encomium — Aphthonius treats it separately —, comparison functions the same way. We have, then, three examples altogether of how comparison plays a part in encomium/vituperation. In each example, a comparison is placed in its penultimate position. Each time it is introduced with a rhetorical question. In the example of Thucydides, the comparison is made to Herodotus. Does anyone really compare Herodotus with him? But Herodotus narrates for pleasure, whereas this man utters all things for the sake of truth. To the extent that entertainment is less worthy than a regard for the truth, to that degree does Herodotus fall short of the virtues of Thucydides.174 The parallel is drawn between the motive of Herodotus and that of Thucydides. The evaluation is based on an enthymeme: given that a “regard for the truth” is of more value than “entertainment,” Herodotus, therefore, is inferior to Thucydides. In the same way a comparison is given for wisdom in the second example. Is there anyone, indeed, who will compare bravery to her? But what power is able to accomplish is the gift of wisdom and, if you take away prudence from bravery, it is left accused of defect.175 Here again, the topic of comparison begins with a rhetorical question identifying the competing virtue of bravery. It is again followed by an evaluation based on an enthymeme. Expressed in the negative, bravery is not as good as wisdom. The third example comes in the section on Vituperation — the negative of encomium. Comparison plays the same role in the vituperation. Indeed, who will compare Echetus to this man? At least Echetus, though cutting off bits of extremities, left the rest of the body; the latter destroyed whole bodies with all their parts. Philip is more terrible than 173R. Nadeau, “The 174Nadeau, p. 274. 175Ibid., p. 275. Progymnasmata of Aphthonius in Translation,” SM 19 (1952): 273. 64 Echetus to the same degree that a destruction of a whole is more painful than the destruction of a part.176 Following the initial rhetorical question in which the object of comparison is introduced, Aphthonius gives the parallel. The comparison is a type in which two bad items are compared to show which is the worse of the two. Again, the evaluation is based on an enthymeme based on an argument of the whole and the part. In these examples of speeches in which comparison is only a part, a recognizable pattern has emerged. The object for comparison is introduced, in these cases, with a rhetorical question expressing incredulity. The parallel is made between the two with an evaluation of which is better or, in the case of the vituperation, which is worse. This evaluation is based on an enthymeme which establishes the standard by which the two items are to be judged. Analysis of Aphthonius’ Synkrisis Aphthonius begins his discussion of synkrisis, as he begins the other exercises, with a definition. Suvgrisiv" ejsti lovgo" ajntexetastiko;", ejk paraqevsew" sunavgwn tw'/ paraballomevnw/ to; mei'zon h] to; i[son. A comparison is a comparative speech inferring through juxtaposition that a thing is greater than its rival.177 Aphthonius distinguishes between comparison as found within encomium and comparison as a separate form of speech (lovgo"). Within this brief definition he uses three different terms to refer to comparison. The word ajntexetastikov" emphasizes the examination of one thing over against another. Aphthonius uses this word again in the introductory statement of his model exercise (10.98.12; cf. Hermogenes 8.13). Both paravqesi" and parabavllw indicate the nature of comparison as items which are placed side by side. The purpose of comparison is to reach a conclusion, through bringing 176Ibid., 177Ibid. p. 276. 65 the two items together, as to which item is greater than the item generally considered to be an equal. There are four ways in which to make a comparison. Dei' de; sugkrivnonta" h] kala; paraqei'nai crhstoi'", h] fau'la fauvloi", h] crhsta; ponhroi'", h] mikra' paraqei'nai toi'" meivzosi: Further, it is necessary for those who make comparisons either to place the good beside the excellent, or the mean beside the base, or the upright beside the wicked, or the small beside the greater.178 The first two ways of making a comparison combine items of equal value; the second two compare an item of lesser value with one that is greater.179 In the first type, a good item is set alongside another item of positive value.180 Likewise, the second type involves a parallel of something bad with another item of negative value. In the second two ways of making a comparison, the first item is of lesser value than the second. The third type, then, has a juxtaposition of opposites — the “upright” with the “wicked.” Again, the fourth type combines an item which is “small” with one that is “greater.” Aphthonius describes comparison, therefore, as a “two-fold” encomium or an encomium coupled with a vituperation. In the former case, both items are being praised. The latter situation alternates between praising one item and dispraising the other. Each type is considered powerful, but the fourth type is especially favored. As to the objects for comparison, the list is the same as that for encomium and vituperation. The first two items were the two that Theon discussed: provswpa and pravgmata. Aphthonius includes others: “times and places, dumb animals and, in addition, plants.”181 178Ibid. 179These four types are closely 180The translation of crhsthv related to the four types given by Hermogenes. by “excellent” gives the impression of comparison with something superior. A better translation is a word synonymous with kalov". This is supported by the next clause which has the same word for both items of comparison. 181Nadeau, p. 277. Hermogenes had also discussed plants (8.12ff). 66 Next, Aphthonius discusses the pattern for comparison. One should not follow the pattern of treating one subject completely and then turning to the other. Rather, one needs to relate the two items point by point. In other words, the pattern is not 1 a,b,c,d,e followed by 2 a,b,c,d,e, but 1a-2a, 1b-2b, etc. Theon allowed for these two procedures without emphasizing one over the other (X.76–80). Hermogenes, however, seems to have favored the pattern of setting item with item rather than a separate speech for both (8.8ff). Aphthonius deals with one more issue before giving his model exercise. He has also stated that comparison is like combining two encomia. In this last section he makes clear that not all the topics of encomium are used in comparison since that would mean including comparison in a comparative speech. Comparison here is a separate excercise. It is clear, however, that the other common topics of encomium are followed in a comparison as the model exercise also demonstrates. In the model exercise, Aphthonius compares Achilles and Hector. First we will look at the overall structure of the comparison. Aphthonius follows closely the divisions of encomium. He begins with the exordium in which he states the persons for comparison and the purpose: to honor the virtues so that others may imitate them. Under the general rubric of genus is his comparison of fatherland, family, and forefathers/fathers. This is followed by a comparison of education and then of achievement including the manner of death. The comparison concludes with the epilogue. Each of the five sections of the body of the comparison generally follow the same pattern. The section begins with stating the way in which the two are similar with respect to the topic. Then a sentence or clause describes first one and then the other. Each time the particle mevn occurs in the first grammatical unit and is answered by dev or tev in the subsequent unit. In the case of the section on achievements, several sentences describe Hector, having been introduced by mevn; dev begins the next several sentences about Achilles. Coming after this exchange is a brief comparative sentence in which the names of the two are not used, but are merely referred to by the demonstrative force of the article combined 67 with the particles mevn and dev. The section closes, in virtually every instance, with a judgment of the two based on that comparison. Aphthonius has chosen in this comparison to juxtapose the small with the greater. The goal, then, was to show that Hector is equal to Achilles. Both are heroes and exhibit virtues according to the encomiastic divisions. By comparing Hector to Achilles and demonstrating this equality, Aphthonius proves the greatness of Hector. Examples of Synkrisis in Greco-Roman Literature If it is indeed the case that educators, as witnessed by the rhetorical handbooks and the progymnasmata, taught students how to imitate the style of the great authors and orators of their time, then we should be able to find documents which substantiate the practice of synkrisis. We will first identify synkrisis within epideictic speech and then as a distinct composition in itself. Comparison within Epideictic Speech According to Kennedy, “epideictic orations regularly included synkriseis, comparing the subject of the discourse to other great examples of the past.”182 One of the earliest examples comes from one of the greatest exemplars in classical history, Isocrates. In the Helen, Isocrates makes an unusual move in his praise of Helen: “for I think this will be the strongest assurance for those who wish to praise Helen, if we can show that those who loved and admired her were themselves more deserving of admiration than other men (Helen, 22).”183 He is, of course, speaking of Theseus. The comparison he makes is one of equality. 182George A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980), p. 25. 183Isocrates, Helen, p. 73. 68 The fairest praise that I can award to Theseus is this—that he, a contemporary of Heracles, won a fame which rivalled his. For they not only equipped themselves with similar armour, but followed the same pursuits, performing deeds that were worthy of their common origin. For being in birth the sons of brothers, the one of Zeus, the other of Poseidon ( oJ me;n ejk Diov", oJ d- ejk Poseidw'no"), they cherished also kindred ambitions; for they alone of all who have lived before our time made themselves champions of human life (Helen, 23).184 Isocrates praises Theseus by comparing him to Heracles. His declared intent is to establish his equality with Heracles. He lists several ways in which they are similar including their divine births. In doing this he creates a comparative exchange containing the mevn…dev construction with simply the article functioning as a demonstrative pronoun. Here it is only a brief phrase in which the two are compared. A longer comparative exchange follows. Isocrates, having made a comparison based on equality, uses a similarity between the two to show how Theseus is greater than Heracles. For example (mevn), Heracles was ordered by Eurystheus to bring the cattle from Erytheia and to obtain the apples of the Hesperides and to fetch Cerberus up from Hades and to perform other labours of that kind, labours which would bring no benefit to mankind, but only danger to himself; Theseus, however (dev), being his own master, gave preference to those struggles which would make him a benefactor of either the Greeks at large or of his native land (Helen, 24–25).185 While they both performed great labors or struggles, Theseus is praised by the standard that his would have benefit to others; Heracles’ labors would not. As in the previous example, the comparative exchange is indicated by the mevn…dev construction. This time the comparison is more fully developed. In the Evagoras, Isocrates chooses to compare Evagoras to Cyrus whom he calls, “the one hero who was most admired by the greatest number (Evagoras 37).”186 Isocrates uses the same grammatical constructions to indicate the comparative exchanges. These are highlighted in the Greek text below. 184Isocrates, 185Isocrates, 186Isocrates, Helen, p. 73. Helen, pp. 73–75. Evagoras, p. 23. 69 But while Cyrus with a Persian army conquered the Medes, a deed which many a Greek or a barbarian could easily do, Evagoras manifestly accomplished the greater part of the deeds which have been mentioned through strength of his own mind and body. Again, while it is not at all certain from the expedition of Cyrus that he would have endured the dangers of Evagoras, yet it is obvious to all from the deeds of Evagoras that the latter would have readily attempted the exploits of Cyrus. In addition, while piety and justice characterized every act of Evagoras, some of the successes of Cyrus were gained impiously; for the former destroyed his enemies, but Cyrus slew his mother’s father. Consequently if any should wish to judge, not of the greatness of their successes, but of the essential merit of each, they would justly award greater praise to Evagoras than even to Cyrus.187 ajll- oJ me;n tw/' Persw'n stratopevdw/ to; Mhvdwn ejnivkhsen, o{ polloi; kai; tw'n ïEllhvnwn kai; tw'n barbavrwn rJa/divw" a]n poihvseian: oJ de; dia; th'" yuch'" th'" auJtou' kai; tou' swvmato" ta; plei'sta faivnetai tw'n proeirhmevnwn diapraxavmeno": e[peit- ejk me;n th'" Kuvrou strathgiva" ou[pw dh'lon o{ti kai; tou;" Eujagovrou kinduvnou" a]n uJpevmeinen, ejk de; tw'n touvtw/ pepragmevnwn a{pasi fanerovn, o{ti rJa/divw" a]n kajkeivnoi" toi'" e[rgoi" ejpeceivrhsen. pro;" de; touvtoi" tw/' me;n oJsivw" kai; dikaivw" a{panta pevpraktai, tw/' d- oujk eujsebw'" e[nia sumbevbhken: oJ me;n ga;r tou;" ejcqrou;" ajpwvlese, Ku'ro" de; to;n patevra to;n th'" mhtro;" ajpevkteinen. w{st- ei[ tine" bouvlointo mh; to; mevgeqo" tw'n sumbavntwn ajlla; th;n ajreth;n th;n eJkatevrou krivnein, dikaivw" a]n Eujagovran kai; touvtou ma'llon ejpainevseian (Evagoras 37–39). In order to analyze this comparison, we will follow this outline. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Comparative Exchange: Personal Accomplishment 1.1. Cyrus (inferior) 1.2. Evagoras (superior) Comparative Exchange: Bravery 2.1. Cyrus (inferior) 2.2. Evagoras (superior) Comparative Exchange: Piety 3.1. Evagoras (superior) 3.2. Cyrus (inferior) Comparative Exchange: Example of Piety 4.1. Evagoras (superior) 4.2. Cyrus (inferior) Concluding Judgment 187Isocrates, Evagoras, pp. 23,25. 70 In the first comparative exchange, Evagoras is proved to be greater on the basis of his accomplishing deeds through his own strength, whereas Cyrus’ accomplishments were with an army. Again in the second exchange, Evagoras is superior owing to his bravery. In the third comparative exchange, the order is reversed, and Evagoras is praised for acting piously. The brief fourth exchange gives an example of that action. Isocrates concludes the comparison by making the judgment that anyone would more greatly praise Evagoras than Cyrus. The goal of the comparison within this encomium is not simply to demonstrate how wonderful Evagoras is, or was. The expressed purpose is stated at the end of the speech. Isocrates addresses himself to Nicocles and tells him and his friends that he wishes “to incite you to strive eagerly after those things which even now you do in fact desire; and you it behooves not to be negligent, but as at present so in the future to pay heed to yourself and to discipline your mind that you may be worthy of your father and of all your ancestors (Evagoras 80).”188 Comparison functioned as a way to establish the worth of the object to be imitated. It fits in, then, with the overall purpose of moral exhortation. These two speeches of Isocrates situate the practice of comparison as a tool of epideictic speech early in the Greco-Roman tradition. It was not simply taught in the hellenistic schools, it was indeed practiced within society as evidenced by the literature. We have shown synkrisis within encomium just as was taught in the progymnasmata. We will now illustrate its existence as a distinct composition. The Comparisons in Plutarch’s Lives In the writings of Plutarch we have the greatest example of synkrisis. In the Lives alone we have 18 synkriseis. Other texts of his also illustrate the form of comparison. Plutarch, writing from a wide knowledge of history, philosophy, and social customs, lived in approximately the same time period as that of the writing of Hebrews in the late first cen188Isocrates, Evagoras, p. 49. 71 tury and was familiar with the same places that are associated with Hebrews, namely Alexandria and Rome. Both the rhetorical form of his comparisons and their philosophical purpose should prove invaluable in solving the riddle of the literary composition of Hebrews. The Role of the Comparisons It is axiomatic to say that Plutarch, in his writing the Lives, wished “to show that in the past Greece had produced men in every way equal to the great men of Rome.”189 A. J. Gossage, recognizing this as a preliminary purpose and a structural methodology, goes on to indicate what seems to be Plutarch’s main purpose, that it was “a moral one.” 190 This includes the comparisons. The comparisons of Plutarch, once considered to be unessential and unappealing, are generally recognized now, not only as legitimate, but even integral to the Lives. As representative of the attitudes in the first half of the twentieth-century, we may note the following. R. Hirzel wrote that the comparisons were “wie die Faust aufs Auge.”191 U. Wilamowitz remarked, “Freilich kann man nicht sagen, daß die abschließende Vergliechung der verbundenen Charaktere irgendwie Bedeutendes sagte.”192 K. Ziegler, while conceding that the comparisons did contain many fine observations and remarks, went on to say that “sie seien nicht selten in Spitzfindigkeiten und öde rhetorische Antithesendrescherei ausgeartet.”193 F. Focke summed up the prevailing attitude toward the comparisons when he wrote, “Uns erscheinen sie philiströs, pedantisch, langweilig, mitunter töricht.”194 A. Stiefenhofer was the first to show the link between the introduc189A. J. Gossage, “Plutarch,” Latin Biography, ed. T. A. Dorey, Studies in Latin Literature and Its Influence. (New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1967), 60. 190Gossage, p. 60. 191R. Hirzel, Plutarch, (Leipzig: 1912), p. 71. 192Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Die griechische Literatur und Sprache, (Leipzig-Berlin: 1912), p. 242. 193RE, s.v. “Plutarch,” 909,9. 194F. Focke, “Synkrisis,” Hermes 58 (1923): 327.His is the most substantial article on the subject of synkrisis as a whole tracing the development of the practice of comparison in Greek literature from the poets and historians to the rhetoricians. 72 tions to the Lives with the comparisons that follow, and thus set the stage for further analysis.195. D. A. Russell, for instance, acknowledged that “The sunkriseis are thus an essential part of the plan of ‘parallels.’”196 More recently, S. Swain concludes his article with the judgment, “Synkrisis is for Plutarch the crucial tool in his analysis of human character and virtue.”197 It is the contention of Russell that Plutarch’s readers consisted of Greek speakers called to imperial office whom he calls to accept the challenge of the Greek ideal. His purpose, according to Russell, “was to convey the essence of Hellenic paideia to his pupils, to his powerful contemporaries, and to posterity.”198 Plutarch stands in the tradition of Socrates and Aristotle. Russell boldly asserts that “without the Ethics, there would have been no such thing as Plutarchan biography. All the basic assumptions are here. A man must live with his inherited nature (phusis), but he may habituate (ethizein) and train his moral character (ethos); excellence (arete) is to be found in a just and balanced reaction to stimulus and emotion.”199 Plutarch’s method of comparison provides him with the basis for moral instruction. Comparison is, as he puts it, “basically a rhetorical procedure; but it is rescued from the implausibilities of purely rhetorical ingenuity by its value as a way of concentrating and directing the moral reflections which are the primary purpose of biography.”200 The comparative sections complement the preceding biographical narratives. The basis for comparison may be either the character or the circumstance.201 Swain qualifies Russell’s view in his article by focusing not on the similarities or differences in the characters as much as their ethical virtues. 195A. Stiefenhofer, “Zur Echtheitsfrage der biographischen Synkriseis Plutarchs,” Philologus 73 (1916): 468. 196D. A. Russell, Plutarch, ed. Hugh Lloyd-Jones, Classical Life and Letters, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1973), p. 113. 197Simon Swain, “Plutarchan Synkrisis,” Eranos XC (1992): 111. 198Russell, p. 17. 199Ibid., p. 105. 200Ibid., p. 114. 201Ibid. 73 Plutarch defines the parameters of the synkrisis according to his awareness of external factors such as society, strength of enemies, and so on. His theory of character development and of the nature of the individual is central to an understanding of his methods in the comparisons. In character analysis it is the qualitative difference in shared virtues which distinguishes one person from another. It is also the case that the use of diaphora (and homoiotês) in the comparisons alerts us to judgements on ethical virtues rather than to purely external factors. He no doubt thought that the majority of his heroes could be paired satisfactorily on an ethical basis, whether or not the comparisons were inevitable on the basis of external likenesses…202 He emphasizes it succinctly in a concluding statement: “But in most of the Parallels we will say that his care over ethical synkrisis in both narratives and comparisons is for [sic] more important for the successful pairing than his attention to external consistencies in the heroes’ real lives.”203 Plutarch’s “biographies” are dissimilar to other biographies, and have much affinity to rhetorical encomium.204 Russell clearly places the synkriseis —regardless of how one judges them historically or aesthetically — within the rhetorical tradition and within elementary education 202Swain, p. 110. 203Ibid., p. 111. 204Russell, p. 106; 104. He explains this nicely earlier in the book: “Morality, like any other skill, depends on theory and on practice. Theory is represented by knowing and having ready to mind ‘useful thoughts’ (chresimoi epilogismoi, 532D). Practice consists of exercises conducive to the formation of good habits. Plutarch’s moral advice covers both these heads. In both, he is following a long tradition, common to all the Hellenistic schools, with only minor differences of emphasis and practice. Exercise (askesis) fulfils the same function in the acquisition of mental health as gymnastics do for the body. The patient begins with comparatively easy exercises and progresses to the more difficult.” (p. 88) 74 The comparisons do not make very attractive reading. They add little to the information contained in the narrative. They are, as it were, model answers for a rhetorical exercise: you have heard the two stories, what points of similarity and difference can you see? Such things were of course practiced in the schools. Quintilian (2.4.21) gives two advanced exercises which can be used to stimulate progress when simple narratio has been mastered. One consists of encomium and invective (laudare claros viros et vituperare improbos). This exercises the mind with varied material, trains the moral instincts and lays in a store of exempla which will be useful to the orator one day. The other exercise is comparison—‘Which is the better man and which the worse?’ This gives double the amount of material to handle and deals not only with the nature of virtues and vices but with the degree (modus) in which they are present. Plutarch’s sunkriseis [sic] are specimens of this kind of work.205 The comparisons, therefore, are indeed important to Plutarch’s Lives. They are not merely supplements or afterthoughts; they are integral to the work. Modern scholarship places the type of literature within the rhetorical tradition of encomiastic speech, as being a part of elementary education, and as focusing on moral instruction. We will also see that Plutarch’s comparisons are similar in form to what was taught in the progymnasmata. Analysis of The Comparison of Romulus with Theseus All of the comparisons follow the same general composition. There usually is an introduction which serves as a transition from the biographical sections to the comparison. Often Plutarch will discuss the degree to which the individuals are similar or different within the opening statement. In the body of the comparison Plutarch focuses on the most significant points of similarity or difference. The flow of discussion follows a general pattern in which Plutarch takes topics — such as political office, great deeds, military exploits, etc. (he tends to be explicit about his topics) — in succession with several comparative exchanges for each one. These comparative exchanges may take the form of a single compound sentence, a sentence for each character, or several sentences for each. Regardless of length, the comparative exchanges will contain a form of the mevn…dev construction. The grammatical subject is rarely the proper noun. Frequently the article appears alone func- 205Russell, p. 110. 75 tioning as a demonstrative pronoun. At other times he uses the immediate and remote demonstrative pronouns to indicate the subjects (ou|to" / ejkei'no"). Plutarch does not consistently choose one individual as superior to another and then show how that one is superior in different areas. Instead, he covers the selected topics which are significant because of the similarities or differences and shows how one or the other is superior, or how the two are the same. Plutarch intersperses his comparisons with sections in which he turns to the reader with personal comments and paraenesis.206 At times he will make a judgement, sometimes in terms of voting, as to who is superior. Some of the synkriseis have a concluding statement in which Plutarch explicitly states which individual is better than the other. To illustrate the synkriseis of Plutarch, we will examine the composition of one. The following is an outline showing the important features of synkrisis. Outline of The Comparison of Romulus with Theseus 1. 2. Introduction 1.1 Section Topic: Actions 1.1 – 7 2.1. Extended Comparison 1.1 2.1.1. Theseus (superior) 1.1 2.1.2. Romulus (inferior) 1.1 2.2. Extended Comparison 1.2 – 3 2.2.1. Romulus (inferior) 1.2 2.2.2. Theseus (superior) 1.2 – 3 2.3. Phraseological Comparison 1.3 2.3.1. Theseus (superior) 1.3 2.3.2. Romulus (inferior) 1.3 206I am using the term paraenesis to refer generally to moral exhortation. Stowers draws a distinction between protreptic and paraenesis, but also allows for the general use of paraenesis: In this discussion I will use protreptic in reference to hortatory literature that calls the audience to a new and different way of life, and paraenesis for advice and exhortation to continue in a certain way of life. The terms, however, were used this way only sometimes and not consistently in antiquity. The distinction is always relative to the audience’s disposition toward the new life. This distinction is very useful but one should remember that Posidonius, Seneca, and others also used paraenesis or the Latin praeceptio for exhortation and moral-philosophical advice in general. Thus paraenesis can mean either moral exhortation in general or moral exhortation that has a confirming and traditional character (Letter Writing in GrecoRoman Antiquity, pp. 92, 93). 76 Phraseological Comparison 1.3 – 4 2.4.1. Theseus (superior) 1.3 2.4.2. Romulus (inferior) 1.3 – 4 2.5. Authorial Discussion 1.4 –7 3. Section Topic: Political 2.1 – 3 3.1. Phraseological Comparison 2.1 – 2 3.1.1. Statement of Equality 2.1 3.1.2. Theseus (equal) 2.1 3.1.3. Romulus (equal) 2.1 – 2 3.2. Authorial Discussion 2.2 – 3 4. Section Topic: Character (anger) 3.1 – 3 4.1. Authorial Discussion 3.1 – 2 4.2. Extended Comparison 3.2 – 3 4.2.1. Romulus (inferior) 3.2 4.2.2. Theseus (superior) 3.2 – 3 4.3. Extended Comparison 3.3 4.3.1. Romulus (inferior) 3.3 4.3.2. Theseus (superior) 3.3 4.3.3. Statement of Judgement 3.3 5. Section Topic: Deeds 4.1 – 6.7 5.1. Extended Comparison 4.1 – 5.2 5.1.1. Romulus (superior) 4.1 – 5.2 5.1.2. Theseus (inferior) 5.2 6.2. Extended Comparison 6.1 – 2 6.2.1. Theseus (inferior) 6.1 – 2 6.2.2. Romulus (superior) 6.2 6.3. Authorial Discussion 6.3 – 7 7. Section Topic: Divine Birth 6.7 7.1. Phraseological Comparison 6.7 7.1.1. Romulus (superior) 6.7 7.1.2. Theseus (inferior) 6.7 2.4. In the opening statement of this synkrisis, Plutarch merely states that what follows is that which is worth remembering (a[xia mnhvmh") about Romulus and Theseus. The first topic is their actions. In the first comparative exchange, Theseus is shown to be superior because he attempted great things when he could have reigned in security; he was not under any compulsion to perform military exploits. Romulus, however, acted out of fear and necessity. In the next comparative exchange, Romulus, who was the second character 77 in the previous set, now begins the next exchange. He was inferior before and is shown to be inferior again. Whereas Romulus can only be credited with the killing of King Alba, Theseus rid Greece of many oppressors. The next exchange continues the chiastic structure of starting with the subject with which the previous exchange ended. Again, Theseus is portrayed as superior to Romulus based on a standard of action based on compulsion or necessity. Theseus did not need to have engaged in battle; Romulus could not avoid it. In the next exchange (2.4 in the outline), Theseus again begins the exchange and is seen to be superior. The standard in this case is that Theseus acted for the benefit of others, while Romulus and Remus acted selfishly. Plutarch begins his comments (2.5 in the outline) with a conditional sentence. The apodosis contains the first person plural; further on he uses the first person singular. The tone of the section is clearly moral exhortation. Theseus’ actions should be imitated since he acted out of tovlmh", megalofrosuvnh", dikaiosuvnh" peri; to; koino;n and povqou dovxh" kai; ajreth'" (1.5 – 6). The next topic is political life. The function of this comparison is to show equality. Plutarch describes them both as having been destined to rule. Their equality is that they both failed to live up to the standard of kingship. As Plutarch so often does, he makes a play on words to indicate their faults: oJ me;n dhmotikhvn, oJ de; turannikhvn (2.1 – 2). The paraenetic section has the typical deiv. Plutarch instructs his readers to avoid the pitfalls of office as demonstrated by Theseus and Romulus by controlling the passions. Plutarch begins the next section addressing the readers directly with a rhetorical question and the use of the first person. The judgement regarding the actions of the two are based on the assumption that calamity is based, not merely on fortune, but also on individual character. Both Theseus and Romulus acted out of anger. In the first comparative exchange, Romulus is shown to have had less of a motive than Theseus. The balance is tipped in favor of Theseus since, according to Plutarch, few men can fail to be provoked by 78 the complaints of their wives. In the second exchange, the judgement is based on the consequences of the actions: Romulus’ actions resulted in the death of his brother. Plutarch here uses the metaphor of voting on which individual is superior. The judgement is w{ste tauvta" me;n a[n ti" ajpodoivh tw'/ Qhsei' ta;" yhvfou" (3.3). Not only does this serve as a judgement about the comparison so far, but also seems to serve as a transition point: After this juncture, Romulus will be shown to be superior to Theseus. The actions of the first section of this synkrisis had to do with great accomplishments — Plutarch used words like mevgala and e[rga. In the next section he discusses their pravgmata. He includes within this general topic other topics covered in the other synkriseis such as genealogy or ancestry along with parentage, rise to power, benefits bestowed on others, accomplishments, marriage and family. The section is noteworthy for the longer comparative exchanges. The dev serves as an adversative: Although Theseus receives the vote so far, Romulus, however, has something going for him. The mevn occurs here and will occur again with reference to Remus before being answered by dev in the comparison with Theseus. While generally predictable, the mevn…dev construction is not a precise indicator of comparative exchanges. In any case, the text of the individual comparative exchanges has become quite extended. Romulus is praised in the first comparative exchange based on the standard of starting from small beginnings. Both he and Remus are noted for doing more good than harm. They were, as Plutarch describes with another play on words, oijkistai; povlewn, ouj metoikistai (4.2). Theseus, on the other hand, is censured for the harm he brought upon his parents. In the next comparative exchange, Plutarch continues with the faults of Theseus. The point of similarity is the rape of women. Romulus is contrasted in an attempt to show superiority by his only choosing Hersilia after taking nearly eight hundred women. His acts are condoned on account of their social and civic benefits. 79 Plutarch begins his commentary at 6.3. In this he praises not only Romulus, but also the Romans for their matrimonial fidelity. He finds nothing to praise in the marriages of Theseus. The only results are wars and strife. That this is personal commentary is demonstrated by his use of the first person when he expresses his desire that the story of Theseus’ mother might be fictional. In the final section, where we might expect the topic to be death, Plutarch compares their births. The distinction he makes is that Romulus, on the one hand, is preserved by the gods, whereas Theseus’ birth is not favored by the gods.207 Plutarch makes no final judgement in this synkrisis as in others (Philopoemen/Flamininus; Lysander/Sylla; Lucullus/Cimon; Agis & Cleomenes/Gracchi). Plutarch confirms the practice of writing synkriseis. We have looked at only one example among many, and have only discussed the Lives and not any of the other works of Plutarch. The evidence more than sufficiently substantiates synkrisis as a literary composition. Conclusion From the earliest sources within the tradition to the close of the Second Sophistic, we can trace the discussion and application of synkrisis. Its function within rhetoric and its compositional form have been constant. In addition, synkrisis is clearly more than a mere tool of ornamentation, but it also functions as argumentation, proving that one person is superior to another, and that individuals should imitate that person in order to progress toward the goal of the virtuous life. 207The favor of the gods is also mentioned in the conclusion of Lucullus/Cimon. 80 CHAPTER THREE: THE LITERARY STRUCTURE OF HEBREWS We have examined the “network of cultural codes” which make up synkrisis as it was practised in the early centuries of the Common Era. This set of texts becomes our basis for analyzing Hebrews. Before demonstrating that the synkritic genre is the dominant structural principle of Hebrews, we will first discuss the current theories on the structure of Hebrews. Current Theories on the Structure of Hebrews The debate over the structure of Hebrews has been carried on “in many and various ways.” The history of the debate is beyond the focus of this work and can be found in several places.208 The most recent synopsis is that of G. Guthrie who adds his text-linguistic analysis to the rest. The approaches to the structure of Hebrews can be grouped into several types and leading proponents can be identified. To these discussions will be added an article by T. Olbricht in the collection of essays given at the 1992 “Heidelberg Conference on Rhetorical Analysis of Biblical Documents” in which he discusses comparison in the structure of Hebrews.209 My own analysis of the structure of Hebrews and of the role of comparison in it was carried out before studying the theories of the leading proponents. To be totally different than all others would be remarkable, but would also mean that everyone has been wrong. That my understanding of the structure of Hebrews bears similarity to others substantiates my approach and may help to move scholarship towards a consensus. 208Erich Grässer, “Der Hebräerbrief 1938-1963,” ThR 30 (1964): 138-236; Helmut Feld, “Der Hebräerbrief: Literarische Form, religionsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund, theologische Fragen,” Religion, ed. Wolfgang Haase, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1987), 25.4: 3522-3601; George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A TextLinguistic Analysis, Supplements to Novum Testamentum, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994). 209Thomas H. Olbricht, “Hebrews as Amplification,” Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter Thomas H. Olbricht, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 90: 375-387. 81 There are four main approaches to the structure of Hebrews: thematic, rhetorical, literary, and linguistic.210 In addition, there is the “none of the above” group which Guthrie labels “agnostic.”211 These four approaches, while generalizations, will help to give us a point of reference. Thematic Approach The thematic approach focuses mainly on content. It has been traditional to bifurcate Hebrews — as has been done with the Pauline letters — into a doctrinal section and a practical or hortatory section. Most modern scholars recognize that Hebrews contains hortatory sections throughout. Thematic approaches tend to follow one or the other of these two categories. For the most part it is an attempt to view the structure in modern terms rather than understand the text in ancient categories. For works which are aimed at the popular level, this is excusable. It is not, however, helpful for the scholarly analysis of the text. Having said that, there is one particular commentator whose outline of Hebrews is of interest. P. E. Hughes presents the structure of Hebrews in the following outline.212 Theme: THE SUPREMACY OF CHRIST I. II. III. IV. V. VI. Christ superior to the prophets (1:1–3) Christ superior to angels (1:4–2:18) Christ superior to Moses (3:1–4:13) Christ superior to Aaron (4:14–10:18) Christ superior as the new and living way (10:19–12:29) Concluding exhortation, requests, and greetings (13:1–25) Hughes emphasizes the theme of superiority. This is precisely the aim of synkrisis: to demonstrate the excellency of one item over another. Through his analysis of the content 210It must be recognized, in all fairness to those whose works we will mention, that there are different purposes for outlines which guide their construction and criticism should be sensitive to the differences. 211Guthrie (The Structure of Hebrews, pp. 24 - 26) discusses James Moffat (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, [New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1924] and a review written by T. C. G. Thornton (“Review of La structure littéraire de l' Épître aux Hébreux by Albert Vanhoye,” JTS 15 (1964): 137-41). 212Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 3–4. 82 of the text, Hughes summarizes the theme of Hebrews as “the uniqueness and supremacy of Christ in comparison with the transitory and incomplete character of all that preceded his coming.”213 He uses similar language describing chapter 7, “…when the priesthood of Christ is compared with that of the levitical succession.”214 An observation of the content, therefore, suggests that the text is concerned with comparison, and Hughes, without a discussion of the rhetoric of synkrisis, identifies the main comparisons in much the same way as we will show in our discussion of the structure of Hebrews. Rhetorical Approach Guthrie labels a second approach as “Rhetorical Criticism.”215 This approach of viewing the early Christian documents in the light of Greco-Roman rhetoric, while having advocates in older works, has received renewed interest in recent years. Guthrie points out the weakness which plagues most of the attempts when they discuss the structure of documents using rhetorical criticism. Too much emphasis is placed on arrangement into units which practice had to do primarily with forensic rhetoric. To simply identify units of Hebrews as exordium, narratio, propositio, argumentatio, probatio, refutatio, and peroratio, not only forces the text, but also, in some schemes, is the equivalent of identifying the beginning, the middle, and the end. It tends not to be very useful in itself. Guthrie points out the most important caveat about rhetorical criticism which is that most of the documents of early Christianity are, in the words of B. Mack, “a mixed bag.”216 While Guthrie’s criticisms are well-earned, he is guilty of prejudging without argument. He simply states, 213Hughes, p. 38. 214Hughes, p. 36. 215Guthrie, pp. 29–33. 216Guthrie (p. 32) citing Burton Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament, p. 35). 83 Second, while the speech forms in the classical handbooks were crafted in the judicial and political spheres, the book of Hebrews has the characteristics of the hellenistic synagogue homily. This form, while containing a wide range of rhetorical features described in the Greek handbooks, can not be forced into the mold of a classical speech. Rather, the author’s means of argument follow the rhetoric and exegetical skills of the rabbis.217 This is very argument we sought to dispel in chapter one. The problem is not with the application of rhetorical criticism to Hebrews, it is with the way it is applied. Several recent attempts have been made to follow this emphasis on arrangement.218 The most significant of these is the article of T. Olbricht who specifically discusses synkrisis in Hebrews.219 He states his thesis in the introduction. The author of Hebrews compared Jesus with such illustrious personages as angels, Moses, Joshua, the Levitical priests and Melchizedek. He also compared the sacrifice of Christ’s blood with the respected blood of bulls and goats. He set out to prove that Jesus was superior to these persons of great worth, thereby establishing his higher status.220 Olbricht rightly assesses the role of synkrisis in epideictic speeches as amplication. He cites Aristotle as his source and finds parallels to the funeral orations. Although he considers comparison to be “crucial in the rhetorical strategy of Hebrews,”221 he criticizes Hughes by saying that efforts “to structure the work according to the comparisons gloss over and skew the basic argument.”222 Instead, Olbricht favors the approach of Attridge. He again summarizes the main point of Hebrews, but in a different way: 217Guthrie, p. 32. 218Thomas H. Olbricht, “Hebrews as Amplification,” Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter Thomas H. Olbricht, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 90: 375-387; Walter Überlacker, Der Hebräerbrief als Appell: Untersuchungen zu exordium, narratio und postscriptum, Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament Series, (Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989); Keijo Nissilä, Das Hohepriestermotiv im Hebräerbrief: Eine Exegetische Untersuchung, Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 33, (Helsinki: Oy Liiton Kirjapaino, 1979). 219Olbricht has criticized the “usefulness of rigid delineation according to the three genres” (Olbricht, “Hebrews as Amplification,” n. 4, p. 377) in “An Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Thessalonians,” Greeks, Romans and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. E. Ferguson and W. Meeks D. L. Balch, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 216–36. 220Olbricht, p. 375. 221Olbricht, p. 376. 222Olbricht, p. 376. 84 The author is adamant that recovery will come about from in-depth theological reflection upon Christ’s achievements as sacrificer and sacrifice:… His strategy, therefore, is to set forth complicated instruction, followed by exhortation, that is, a charge to action.223 This really is not a different way, but is the same exposition/exhortation dichotomy found in the basic approach to Hebrews. Olbricht’s “skeletal arrangement of his strategy” does not even use the word comparison. It is clearly a thematic arrangment. The reason for this, according to Olbricht, is that there are various levels of organization. He identifies the secondary level as that of the funeral sermon.224 For this he finds parallels with Isocrates’ Evagoras and Gregory Nazianzus’ Panegyric on St. Basil. In an affirmation of Hebrews’ parallels with the funeral oration and epideictic literature, he broadens the scope in identifying the genre of Hebrews. I have been particularly struck with the similarity of the arrangement of Hebrews when compared with the eulogy of Isocrates on Evagoras and Gregory of Nazianzus on Basil the Great. Hebrews best conforms to the epideictic genre in its superstructure even though the body of the argument may be conceived as deliberative.225 I infer from this that Olbricht finds Hebrews much more hortatory in nature — hence the designation of deliberative — than funeral orations. He makes the statement further on, “Hebrews therefore follows the exhortatory purpose with even sharper clarity and magnitude than does the tradition.”226 The structure Olbricht proposes conforms to the pattern of the funeral oration. Olbricht Outline of Hebrews based on Funeral Oration I. II. Exordium (1.1–4) Encomium (1.5–13.16) a. Family and birth (1.5–3.13) b. Endowments, upbringing and education (3.14–6.12) c. Life, occupation, achievements, fortune (6.13–10.39) d. Comparison with the great and famous 223Olbricht, p. 376. 224Funeral orations have been of special interest to Olbricht. cf. Thomas H. Olbricht, “A Rhetorical Analysis of Representative Homilies of Basil the Great” (Ph.D diss., University of Iowa, 1959). 225Olbricht, p. 378. 226Olbricht, p. 380 85 III. 1. Throughout (1.4–12.29) 2. As a special section (11.1–40) Final Exhortation and Prayer (13.17–25) Olbricht’s analysis of Hebrews according to the common topics of funeral orations is better than other attempts at rhetorical arrangement in that he is at least dealing with the proper genre. Olbricht correctly identifies the occurrence of synkrisis in Hebrews and finds a ready parallel in the epideictic form of funeral orations. One is hard pressed, however, to accept the overall structure as applicable to Hebrews. The problem with the hortatory nature of Hebrews as compared to funeral orations is solved by our understanding of Hebrews as synkrisis in parallel with such synkriseis as we have seen in Plutarch. Here we find synkrisis and paraenesis functioning together for the purpose of moral exhortation. Olbricht, when he comes to the topic of comparison, recognizes that comparison is carried on throughout Hebrews and is not simply used the way it is in funeral orations. The section he labels as comparison (11:1–40) is not comparison. He designates it as such because of some similarities to the extensive comparison section in Gregory of Nazianzus’ funeral oration for Basil (70–76). The comparative exchanges in this document are carried out in typical fashion.227 What is unusual is that the choice of models for comparison are taken from the scripture canon of his day and traced from cover to cover — assuming his use of the codex form. The catalog of models in Hebrews 11 are not comparisons, but function as exempla in paraenetic fashion. Olbricht recognizes the difficulties of the parallel as is shown in his statement, “Whether the borrowing is direct is open to question, but it seems likely.”228 He narrows his thesis, however, to say that Hebrews “replicates the penchant for comparison and contrast in setting forth the superiority of Christ as the mode of amplification.”229 The function of this comparison, according to Olibricht, was “to highlight the extraordinary 227Gregory does not use suvgkrisi" / sugkrivnw, but parexetavzw. He scarcely uses the mevn/dev construction to mark his comparative exchanges. Nevertheless, there is no mistaking the synkritic form. 228Olbricht, “Hebrews as Amplification,” p. 381. 229Olbricht, p. 380–81. 86 achievements of Christ so as to inspire action and endurance. He did this, not so much through straightforward explication, but through showing Christ’s superiority to persons venerated by his readers.” In spite of the weakness of arranging Hebrews according to the form of the funeral oration, Olbricht is the most recent to emphasize the role of synkrisis in Hebrews. Literary Approach The literary approach “refers to an examination of the text which focuses on literary characteristics by which the author crafted his work. These include characteristics which mark the structure (e.g., inclusion, chiasmus, etc.), aspects of style, use of diverse genres, repetition, and vocabulary.”230 Arguably the most significant work in this area has been the contributions of Albert Vanhoye.231 Several commentaries have based their outline on that of Vanhoye.232 Vanhoye has elaborated on the suggestive festschrift article of L. Vaganay by producing a list of five structuralizing techniques which can be found in Hebrews. l’announce du sujet, qui précède et prépare un développement à venir; 230Guthrie, p. 33. 231Albert Vanhoye, La Structure Littéraire de L’Épître aux Hébreux, Studia Neotestamentica, (Paris: Desclée De Brouwer, 1963); “Discussions sur la structure de l’Épître aux Hébreux,” Bib 55 (1974): 349-380; “Literarische Struktur und theologische Botschaft des Hebräerbriefs (1.Teil),” SNT 4 (1979): 119–47; “Literarische Struktur und theologische Botschaft des Hebräerbriefs (2.Teil),” SNT 5 (1980): 18–49; Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews, trans. James Swetnam, Subsidea Biblica 12, (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989). For other significant contributions see Leon Vaganay, “Le plan de l’Épître aux Hébreux,” Memorial Lagrange, ed. L. H. Vincent, (Paris: Gabalda, 1940), 269-277; R. Gyllenberg, “Die Komposition des Hebräerbriefs,” SEÅ 22-23 (19571958): 137-147; Wolfgang Nauck, “Zum Aufbau des Hebräerbriefs,” Judentum, urchristentum, Kirche, Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias, ed. Walther Eltester, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960), 26: 199-206; James Swetnam, “On the Literary Genre of the 'Epistle' to the Hebrews,” NovT 11 (1969): 261-69; “Form and Content in Hebrews 1-6,” Bib 53 (1972): 368-385; “Form and Content in Hebrews 7-13,” Bib 55 (1974): 333-348. 232Vanhoye mentions A. Cody, A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London 1969) and P. Andriessen - A. Lenglet, De Brief aan de Hebreeër (Roermond 1971). Montefiore (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 31) can also be named as someone who has accepted Vanhoye’s proposals. Attridge (The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 19), Ellingworth (The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 58) and Buchanan (To the Hebrews, p. ix) all cite Vanhoye as instrumental in their considerations of structure. 87 les mots-crochets, qui, formant suture, marquent la fin du développement en cours et le début du nouveau développement; le genre (exposé ou parénèse), qui impose sa tonalité à l’ensemble du développement; les termes caractéristiques, qui lui confèrent sa physionomie distincte; les inclusions enfin, ce procédé qui consiste à reprendre à la fin d’un passage donné un terme ou une formule utilisés en son début et qui indique donc de manière très concrète les limites du développement.233 Vanhoye believes that the observation of these indications is able to reveal the literary structure of Hebrews. At the end of each section, according to Vanhoye, the author of Hebrews indicates what he will speak about next. The hook words are significant terms which point forward to the next topic. Many of these are also identified as characteristic terms since they are words which indicate the subject of a section. As a corrective to the view which split Hebrews into two sections—the first containing exposition and the second, exhortation—, Vanhoye calls attention to the variation of these two “genres” throughout Hebrews. These variations are formed by inclusion in which characteristic terms mark the announcement of the subject preceding the inclusion and can also be found at the close of it. Vanhoye’s identification of these literary features are persuasive, for the most part. Anyone who studies the text of Hebrews would surely notice these transitional indications. The difficulty lies in its completely subjective nature. The judgment of whether a word is a hook word depends on prior judgment concerning what the content of the next section is. Inclusions are also very subjective. Vanhoye, for instance, identifies the inclusion in the first section to be 1:5 and 2:16 based on the word angel. It is the first and last use of the word angel in what he identifies as a section. The word angel, however, appears throughout the opening verses of Hebrews. A more likely inclusion, in my opinion, would be 1:3–5 and 1:13–14. Here we find the repetition of the rhetorical question: Tivni ga;r ei\pevn pote tw'n ajggevlwn (1:5); pro;" tivna de; tw'n ajggevlwn 233Vanhoye, La Structure Littéraire, p. 37. 88 ei[rhkevn pote (1:13). This inclusion is also marked by the concepts of “sitting at the right hand” and “inheriting” which appear at the beginning and ending of the “section.” These literary features are a unique aspect of Hebrews. They seem to lend credibility to Vanhoye’s structure. The same features, however, can be used to support a different structure. That these indications occur will not be disputed. Nevertheless, Vanhoye places too much emphasis on them, as if they create the structure rather than support a structure he places upon Hebrews. An additional feature Vanhoye identifies is symmetric arrangements.234 What he means by this is that he identifies places where chiasm is used. His support for such a feature is almost completely from Hebrew literature. While chiastic structures occur in Greek literature—I will argue for one such instance in Hebrews—, Vanhoye goes far beyond simple a, b, c, c’, b’, a’ structure. He builds the entire structure of Hebrews on the principle of concentric symmetry. There are five sections which Vanhoye considers to be the intended arrangement of Hebrews. The first and fifth section each have one part; the second and fourth each have two parts; the third section has three parts being couched between a preliminary and final exhortation. The purpose of this structure, according to Vanhoye, is to place the emphasis on the middle, the central focus of the entire work. He goes on to count the number of verses in order to show the symmetry and balance pointing toward the center of the work. Indeed, Vanhoye believes that the author of Hebrews arranged his text so that the central word is Christ.235 There are several objections which need to be raised. The first is that this structure is completely artificial. There is no support from the ancient literature that such a feature was a part of rhetorical arrangement. His appeal to the structure of the letters of The Revelation as also having a concentric arrangement confuses the issue. The letters in Revelation are highly stylized with opening and closing formulae. There is no comparison 234Vanhoye, La Structure Littéraire, p. 60. 235Vanhoye, Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 36. 89 to Hebrews. Identifying the central word of what Vanhoye calls “the priestly sermon” is similar to the sermon I heard in which the preacher pointed out that John 3:16 has 25 words and the middle word is Son. It makes for a delightful sermonette, but hardly something we can substantiate in Hebrews. The second problem is the concept of a document from antiquity having a center which the author has crafted to represent the central focus of the entire work. What evidence is there that someone within that culture placed such value on the concept of the center of a document? It certainly has come to be a part of Christian theology, but can we place it within the author’s world? The features which Vanhoye has identified are significant for understanding the movement of the topics in Hebrews. The great weakness is the overlying structure placed on Hebrews. As Otto Kuss has concluded, “the current evidence of a systematic arrangement speaks more of the determination and hypothetical sagacity of the exegete in question than of a genuinely intelligible methodicalness of an artfical composition of the unknown author.”236 In spite of the overstatements in Vanhoye’s work, there is great value in his literary analysis. One important and more recent aspect of his work is especially signfificant. Within his early works, Vanhoye will often refer to the author of Hebrews making a comparison. In his 1974 article, he makes this part of his outline of the structure of Hebrews.237 Outline of Hebrews According to Albert Vanhoye EXORDE: L’intervention divine dans l’histoire humaine He 1,1–4 1 e PARTIE: S ITUATION DU CHRIST (comparaison avec les anges) A. Intronisation du Fils de Dieu (1,5–14) – Exhortation à reconnaître son autorité (2,1–4) 1,5–2,18 236Otto Kuss, Der Brief an die Hebräer, (Regensburg: Pustet, 1964), p. 14 (as cited and translated by David Alan Black, “The Problem of the Literary Structure of Hebrews: An Evaluation and a Proposal,” GTJ 7 [1986]: 173). 237Vanhoye, “Discussions sur la structure de l’Épître aux Hébreux,” pp. 377–378. 90 B. Solidarité avec les hommes acquise par la Passion glorifante (2,5– 18) 2 e PARTIE: P RÉSENTATION DU CHRIST NOTRE GRAND PRÊTRE 3,1–5,10 A. Jésus, grand prêtre digne de foi en tant que Fils de Dieu (3,1–6) (comparaison avec Moïse) – Mise en garde contre le manque de foi et appel à réaliser la vocation céleste (3,7–4,14) (comparaison des compagnons du Christ avec ceux de Moïse et de Josué) B. Jésus, grand prêtre qui compatit avec les hommes et s’accomplit par sa Passion (4,15–5,10) (comparaison avec Aaron) 3 e PARTIE: T RAITS SPÉCIFIQUES DU SACERDOCE DU CHRIST 5,11–10,39 – Appel à l’attention et à la générosité (5,11–6,20) (comparaison avec Abraham) A. Le sacerdoce glorieux du Fils de Dieu (7,1–28) (relation avec melchisédech, contraste avec Aaron) X. Synthèse centrale: l’accomplisement du sacerdoce grâce au sacrifice personnel par lequel le Christ médiateur s’élève jusqu’à Dieu (8,1–9,28) (comparaisons avec les sacrifices anciens) B. Efficacité du sacrifice du Christ contre les péchés des hommes (10,1–18) (contraste avec l’impuissance du culte ancien) – Jonction exposé-parénèse: Appel à s’approcher de Dieu par le Christ (10,19–29) (comparaison avec la loi de Moïse) 4 e PARTIE: A DHÉSION AU CHRIST PAR LA FOI PERSÉVÉRANTE 11,1–12,13 A. Exemples de foi en Dieu, donnés par les anciens (11,1–40) (rapprochements avec le mystére du Christ) B. Appel à tenir bon parmi les hommes, comme Jésus, et à accepter l’éducation divine par la souffrance (12,1–13) (comparaison avec l’éducation humaine) 5 e PARTIE: O RIENTATIONS DE VIE CHRÉTIENNE 12,14–13,18 (comparaison avec la condition religieuse sous l’Ancien Testament) A. Relation à garder avec les réalités célestes (12,14–29) – Directives concrètes (13,1–6) B. Solidarité dans l’Église, centré sur la Passion du Christ (13,7– 18) CONCLUSION: Que Dieu agisse en vous par Jésus-Christ! 91 13,20–21 The only comment Vanhoye makes is that “entre parenthèses () sont indiquées les comparaisons dont l’auteur se sert pour développer sa pensé.”238 Vanhoye, who has made the most significant and comprehensive analysis of the structure of Hebrews, recognizes that comparison occurs throughout the document. Once again we find the ubiquitous acknowledgment of the presence of comparison in Hebrews. Linguistic Approach One other approach is that called “discourse analysis” or “text linguistics.” It shares some of the same methods as that of the literary approach. Linguistic analysis is based on a more philosophical approach to the study of language. Several works on Hebrews have been written from this perspective in recent years. The 1981 Synopse Structurelle de l'Épître aux Hébreux: Approache d' Analyse Structurelle of Louis Dussaut, for all of its philosophical methodology, is, in large part, a reworking of Vanhoye’s conclusions.239 He likewise emphasizes not only the literary indications, but also the concentric nature of the overall structure. Dussaut refers to this this as a icône cristique which has as its center the word Cristov". The major weakness of his work, other than that which can also be said of Vanhoye, is the inability of an analysis of the surface structure alone to give added insights into the interpretation of the text. Another work that should be mentioned in this regard is that of Linda Lloyd Neeley.240 Many of the criteria she uses are similar to those of Vanhoye. In determining discourse divisions she mentions the criteria of a change in genre, transitions (back-refer- 238Ibid., p. 376. 239Louis Dussaut, Synopse Structurelle de l'Épître aux Hébreux: Approache d' Analyse Structurelle, (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1981). 240Linda Lloyd Neeley, “A Discourse Analysis of Hebrews,” Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics 3–4 (1987): 1–146. 92 ences, reiterations, and summaries), relatively rare linguistic devices, and the lexical and semantic cohesion of the preceding embedded discourse (sandwich structures).241 George Guthrie also employs the methodology of text-linguistics.242 Guthrie focuses on how to identify the discourse units in Hebrews and how they are related to each other. One method analyzes the cohesion shift between these units. Any discourse unit has a network of relationships, some grammatical and others lexical, which make that unit of text cohesive. Genre, topic, conjunction, logical relationships between parts of an argument or narrative, consistency of grammatical subject, verb tense, person and number, lexical repetition, consistency of temporal and spatial indicators, or various types of reference all may serve in mkaing a discourse cohesive at the paragraph or embedded discourse level.243 Guthrie, as others who have followed Vanhoye, makes use of inclusion, hood words, and the genre shift between exposition and exhortation. Some basic assumptions weaken an otherwise rigorous analysis of Hebrews. In his brief discussion of genre, Guthrie merely states “In the present discussion, the genre will always be either exposition or exhortation, the two prominent genres in the book of Hebrews.”244 Although exposition is a designation of a genre type according to discourse theory, he most likely is repeating the common demarcation of the scholarly literature. As such, it adds nothing new to the discussion. Guthrie does claim that his method of analysis is “highly eclectic.” However, text-linguistic analysis of Hebrews must include attention to literary and oratorical conventions of the first century. Insights into that milieu in which Hebrews was crafted are essential for proper assessment of the book’s structure. The methodology presented below, although highly eclectic, may be designated as “text-linguistic analysis.” This, however, is a form of text linguistics which seeks to be cognizant of the world and ways in which the author of Hebrews developed and delivered his message.245 241Neeley, p. 6. 242George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 73, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994). 243Guthrie, p. 50. 244Ibid. 245Ibid, p. 46. 93 Then in a footnote he states, “The author of Hebrews especially uses methods of interpretation and argumentation found in the rabbis. His use of the Old Testament has been one of the most neglected topics in discussions on the structure of the book.”246 The only place that he illustrates this is in his treatment of chapter 7 where he, again in a footnote, discusses the issue of midrash.247 Regarding paraenesis, he notes the similarities between the paraenetic sections of Hebrews and what H. Thyen described as typical of the JewishHellenistic synagogue homilies.248 Guthrie presents a greater balance between literary/linguistic analysis and the need for understanding the text within its ancient context. His is also an improvement over those structures which rely on an artificial concentric symmetry. The methods of analysis are valuable, but need to be studied in conjunction with the rhetoric of the Greco-Roman world. Structure Based on Synkrisis/Paraenesis The phrase tou' lovgou th'" paraklhvsew" (13:22), though not a technical phrase, is an apt description of Hebrews. From beginning to end, the goal is to persuade the readers to progress and not to turn back. The author uses two primary elements to achieve this. As has been shown, many have divided the text into an exposition/exhortation dichotomy. In chapter one we pointed out the weakness of such designations as midrash, exegesis, commentary, and exposition. The problem is not so much with the division, but with the nature of the argument. Hebrews contains a repetition of synkrisis followed by paraenesis based on the synkrisis. These sections are detected by the comparative exchanges with the concomitant features such as the mevn … dev construction along with the demonstrative use of the article and comparative terms. While synkrisis functions as paraenesis—they are, in 246Ibid, n. 1, p. 45. 247Ibid, n. 31, p. 124. 248Ibid, n. 12, p. 115. 94 effect, examples—, we will refer to the sections which contain explicit characteristics of paraenesis as such. The secondary elements which help to distinguish sections are similar to those others have used. The paraenetic sections are marked by such things as pronominal shifts to the first person plural, the use of the hortatory subjunctive, the imperative, and other characteristic features of paraenesis. We will also note how inclusion signals the shift between sections. These transition sections are remarkably crafted to introduce and reintroduce ideas. There are two particular elements which have been the source of discussions concerning midrash. The quotations which recur throughout Hebrews are not the determining factor for argument as in midrash, but are supporting proof similar to the situations in which authors would quote from Homer. In this case the authority is the Hebrew scriptures in Greek form. The form of argumentation is the enthymeme referred to as a fortiori , an argument used long before the rabbinic development of qal wahomer. Aristotle (Rhetoric II.23.4–5; cf. Topica III.6.119b,17–30) describes it in this way: a[llo" ejk tou' ma'llon kai; h|tton, oi|on “eij mhd- oiJ qeoi; pavnta i[sasin, scolh'/ oi{ ge a[nqrwpoi” : tou'to gavr ejstin “eij w|/ ma'llon a]n uJpavrcoi mh; uJpavrcei, dh'lon o{ti oujd- w|/ h|tton.” Another line of proof is the ‘a fortiori’. Thus it may be argued that if even the gods are not omniscient, certainly human beings are not. The principle here is that, if a quality does not in fact exist where it is more likely to exist, it clearly does not exist where it is less likely. Theon, in his discussion of the elementary exercise called Commonplace explains how comparison is used in argumentation. o{tan de; ejlavttoni sugkrivnwmen, ou{tw" ejrou'men: eij oJ klevpth" ajnqrwvpwn crhvmata ajfairouvmeno" kolavzetai, povsw/ ma'llon ou|to" kolasqhvsetai oJ ta; tw'n qew'n sulw'n. (VI, 63–66) 95 When we compare it to something inferior, we will speak as follows: If the thief is punished for taking money from people, how much more shall this person, who plunders what belongs to the gods, be punished?249 This form of argument is precisely what we find in Hebrews. Comparison is made between the greater and the lesser. If in the lesser situation there was severe punishment, it follows that in the greater situation there will be a greater punishment. The following outline illustrates the way that synkrisis is used in conjunction with paraenesis. OUTLINE OF HEBREWS Angels (1:1-2:18) Synkrisis of Son and Angels (1:1–14) Paraenesis (2:1–18) Moses (3:1–4:16) Synkrisis of Moses and Christ the Son (3:1–6) Paraenesis (3:7–4:16) Aaron (5:1–6:20) Synkrisis of Aaron and Christ (5:1–10) Paraenesis (5:11–6:20) Melchizedek (7:1–8:3) Synkrisis of Melchizedek/Christ and Levitical Priesthood (7:1–25) Paraenesis (7:26–8:3) Covenant (8:4–10:18) Synkrisis of First Covenant and New Covenant (8:4–10:18) Paraenesis (10:19–12:29) Epistolary Appendix (13:1–25) This broad outline demonstrates how the author, in this encomiastic speech of the genre synkrisis, praises Jesus and the new way He has instituted, by comparing Him with features of the first covenant: the angels through whom the law was given, Moses to whom the Law was given and who led the children of Israel to the Promised Land, Aaron the High Priest, Melchizedek who represents a priesthood that surpasses the Levitical priesthood, and the tabernacle and sacrificial system. Jesus is shown to be greater than these by comparison. Each comparison also introduces a paraenetic section in which the author 249Butts, p. 411. 96 exhorts, rebukes, commands and warns his readers not to fall into the same situation as the Israelites since a greater (or at least equal) punishment will result from disobeying the greater revelation in Jesus Christ. Angels (1:1-2:18) The first topic for comparison is angels. It was through angels that God spoke in ancient times. In the last days now, God has spoken in a Son who bears God’s own image. The superiority of the Son is a warning that if those who did not obey the message brought by angels were duly punished, how will anyone escape judgment if they neglect the salvation spoken through the Lord. After all, it was Jesus who became like humankind in order that, through His death, He might destroy the enslaving power of death and, through His suffering, help Abraham’s descendants as a High Priest. Synkrisis of Son and Angels (1:1–14) The first four verses of Hebrews are generally considered to be the introduction to the work. The periodic nature of the opening sentence, the somewhat typical “sonorous hendiadys”250 with which it begins, and the concepts which become fully developed throughout the document251 support taking this as an exordium of a philosophical nature. Although 1:1–4 introduce the comparison of the Son with the angels, there is a comparison made in these first verses which overarch the rest of Hebrews.252 In verse one, God spoke “toi'" patravsin ejn toi'" profhvtai".” It is generally conceded that this phrase refers not specifically to the Prophets — Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.— but those through whom God spoke, e.g. Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, etc.253 Since this comparison is not developed in the rest of the work, there has been some conjecture as to why the author introduces the prophets and then passes on 250James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1924), p. 2. 251“last days” (9:26); “Son” (1:5,8; 2:6; 3:6; 4:14; 5:5,8; 6:6; 7:3,28; 10:29); “sat” (8:1; 10:12; 12:2). 252Ellingworth describes this as a comparison (Hebrews, p. 91). 253Attridge, Hebrews, pp. 38,39; Moffatt, p. 3. 97 to speak of angels. Some have even conjectured that ajggevloi" should be read instead of profhvtai".254 Ellingworth, in his discussion of the use of the preposition, writes: The meaning of ejn toi'" profhvtai" is almost certainly determined by the parallel with ejn uiJw,/' which is probably also instrumental, though the distinction cannot be pressed too sharply. The parallel with ejn uiJw/' does, however, exclude the otherwise possible meaning “in the prophets’ writings,” though this is doubtless indirectly implied.255 He goes on to say “There is no exact NT parallel to the use of oiJ profh'tai alone to mean scripture as a whole.”256 Nevertheless, there are several points that suggest this. The common designation of this sort is “the law and the prophets” (Luke 24:44 adds the third category, the psalms). The term “law” in Hebrews is never as a designation for the books of Moses, but rather as a reference to the legal code. Furthermore, citations are made in very general terms even to the point of saying “It has been testified somewhere…” (2:6) and “For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way…” (4:4). The designation for scripture this writer chooses is “the word of God” (4:12). It goes without saying that the writer of Hebrews is concerned with the body of scripture: the topics range throughout the Torah (giving of the law, Moses, the exodus, Aaron, Abraham and Melchizedek, the tabernacle) and chapter 11 lists examples from beginning to end, including the Maccabaean literature. It is also clear that this text was a Greek translation. This introduction in 1:1–4 initiates this comparison of God speaking in His Son with what God spoke in the past “in the prophets.” Whether or not this interpretation of this phrase is accepted, it remains that Hebrews contains an interplay between the Jewish scriptures in a Greek translation on the one hand, and the teachings about Jesus on the other. The important distinction here, for the purpose of our overall reading of Hebrews, is that comparison is used as a tool for exemplifying how God interacted with the behavior of His people as recorded in the model text. The emphasis on 254Cited by Moffatt, p. 3. 255Ellingworth, p. 92. 256Ibid., p. 93. 98 the so-called “expositional” passages has led to the traditional interpretation that Hebrews is an anti-Judaic tract concerned with the replacement of Israel. By careful analysis of the role of comparison in conjunction with the paraenetic sections, we will show that a proper reading of Hebrews sees the people and events of the Jewish writings as models, both negative and positive, for exhorting the readers to progress in their faith and obedience in the light of social and cultural struggles. The theme of superiority is introduced in the comparative adverbs in 1:4, “having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.” If 1:1–4 is an exordium, then 1:4 is early evidence of this author’s skill at smooth transitions from one point to the next. The first topic for comparison, then, is the angels. There are two comparative exchanges on this topic. The first exchange is 1:5–6 followed by the second exchange in 1:7–12. Both of these exchanges contain mostly quotations, mainly from the Psalms. Verses 12,13 form an inclusio by returning to the theme of 1:3 and 1:7. In the first exchange, the first subject is angels in 1:5. The parallel is in 1:6 with the subject being the “first-born.” The quotations support the thesis of 1:4 that the name the Son has inherited is better than the angels because of the relationship of father and son and because the angels are in the inferior role of worshipping the Son. The second exchange retains the same order of subjects, first the angels (1:7) and then the Son (1:8–12). This time the author includes the particles making up the mevn … dev construction. In the first part, the angels are shown to be inferior by their servile status. The succession of quotations in the second part concerning the Son emphasize his eternal nature and his authority. The author brings the topic full circle in 1:13 by quoting Ps 109:1 with reference to the Son sitting at the right hand of God. This rhetorical question is followed by another in 1:14 which echos the quotation of Ps 103:4 in 1:7. One cannot help but be struck by the 99 Vaganay/Vanhoye phenomenon of “word hooks” in this transitional sentence: leitourgika; pneuvmata (1:7); ajpostellovmena (3:1); swthrivan (2:1).257 Paraenesis (2:1–18) This paraenetic section is marked by the connective phrase Dia; tou'to (2:1). Characteristic features such as dei' with the infinitive and the third person plural are indicative of paraenesis. The author warns his readers on the basis of the comparison just made. It is important to notice that the emphasis is not on the inferiority of the angels or even what Ellingworth describes as “the negative effects of the Law” versus “the positive effects of the Christian message.”258 What the angels transmitted is acknowledged to be “valid” bevbaio" (2:2). There is no theological discussion on the heresy of worshipping angels or any other such “mirror reading.” The point is that in the context of the word brought by the angels — the Mosaic law by inference — there was a sure punishment for “transgression and disobedience.” What follows is aptly described by Ellingworth as a “a fortiori comparison.”259 There is an even greater danger for those who “neglect” the message which has come through “the Lord” (2:3). The application of the comparison is on the issue of judgment for not heeding the message. There is no explicit statement as to what that involves in the case of the readers. The third person plural address to the readers — or hearers (“concerning which we are speaking” 2:5) — continues through to the end of chapter two. This elaborate transitional section moves from the topic of angels to high priest. The Son, now referred to as Jesus (2:9), becomes inferior to the angels, while the readers are shown to be superior to the angels (2:16). The transition concludes by introducing the themes of high priest, faithfulness, suffering, temptation, and help. 257Vanhoye, p. 74. 258Ellingworth, p. 138. 259Ellingworth, p. 137. 100 Moses (3:1–4:16) The theme of high priest appears throughout most of the rest of Hebrews. It has been introduced in the previous transitional section and is now to become a topic for comparison. At least verse one contains the imperative directed to the audience katanohvsate to;n ajpovstolon kai; ajrciereva th'" oJmologiva" hJmw'n ÆIhsou'n which has the term high priest. Nevertheless, priesthood does not actually become a topic until the next transitional section (4:14–16) which precedes the comparison of Christ and the priesthood (5:1ff). The author first draws a comparison between Moses and Christ.260 This brief comparative section is culminated by a long paraenetic section focusing on the consequences of those who followed Moses. Synkrisis of Moses and Christ the Son (3:1–6) The author begins with a terse comparative exchange in verse two by which he establishes the topic of Moses and faithfulness over one’s “house”: “He was faithful to him who appointed him, just as Moses also was faithful in God’s house (3:2).” The second comparative exchange is more formal. (3:5) kai; Mwu>sh'" me;n pisto;" ejn o{lw/ tw'/ oi[kw/ aujtou' wJ" qeravpwn eij" martuvrion tw'n lalhqhsomevnwn, (3:6) Cristo;" de; wJ" uiJo" ; ejpi; to;n oi\kon aujtou The typical mevn … dev construction indicates the change in subject. The comparison is based on an equality of faithfulness.261 Yet there exists a difference in roles. Moses was faithful as a servant, but Christ was faithful as a Son. The play on the word house con260If in 3:1 High Priest points to the impending comparison, is it possible that apostle may refer to the present comparison of Moses (the verb ajpostevllw is used frequently with reference to Moses in the existing LXX versions[Exod 3:10,12,13,14,15, etc.]). In this case, the author is announcing his arrangement. Vanhoye considers “faithful” and “merciful” (2:17) to be word hooks (p. 81). Moses is compared relative to his faithfulness in this section, and the priesthood is compared relative to mercy in the next. 261Buchanan certainly acknowledes this structure: The first two chapters concentrated on the angels in comparison with the Son. These next two chapters contain an equally well-reasoned comparison of the office and work of Moses to the office and work of Christ (p. 60).” Attridge calls it a comparison as well (p. 110, 114[2x], 115). He still refers to it, though, as a “little homiletic midrash” (p. 114). 101 firms the superior status of the Son who is over the household of believers.262 The author identifies the audience as making up that household, but with a caution that is reiterated several times over. The stating of the condition of endurance begins the paraenesis. Paraenesis (3:7–4:16) An extended quotation from Ps 95 sets the narrative context of the “house” over which Moses was faithful. In his situation, the people lacked faith and were disobedient. As a consequence of their hardness of heart, God punished them by not allowing them to continue on. A generation died without having entered into the land. The author warns his audience of the danger that exists “to fall away from the living God” (3:12). This is described variously as having an “evil, unbelieving heart” (3:12), being “hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (3:13), and of not holding “our first confidence firm to the end” (3:14). The author interprets the word Today to refer to their own time (3:13). This method of making contemporary application also makes us of the concept of “entering His rest” (4:1ff). The hortatory subjunctive in 4:1 continues the paraenesis. The author exhorts his audience to fear the outcome if they were to lack faith as in the example he has set before them. The parallel is closely connected. Both groups of people have received the “good news” (4:2,6). The distinction made between groups is not the quality of the message, but the response to it. The former group did not respond in faith. Therefore, since they did not enter, there is a chance for the present group to enter. Attridge portrays 4:3–11 as a midrash in the form of a gezera shawa argument. As he admits, however, “This exegetical method is not confined to a rabbinic exegesis.”263 There are several factors which mitigate against this idea. It is not necessary to appeal to 262Buchanan holds that the author is referring to the temple with the word house (p. 58). His search for the meaning of the term includes the targums, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and various talmudic tractates. In addition, he includes references throughout the New Testament writings. This type of indiscriminate searching about for parallels does not help in interpreting this text. D’Angelo assumes the author is constructing a midrash here with 1 Chr 17:14 in mind (Moses, pp. 65–93). 263Attridge, n. 77, p. 129. 102 later rabbinic methodology. Attridge’s example is Philo in Rev. div. her. 275–83 “where the term ‘father’ in Gen. 15:15 is reinterpreted via Gen 12:1–2 as either ‘sun, moon and stars’ or as the ‘elements.’”264 The crux of the matter for the author of Hebrews is not simply interpreting a single, obscure word on the basis of its presence in another passage. Gen 2:2 is brought in to explain the concept of “My rest” katavpausivn mou (Ps 95:11). Before the quotation from Gen 2:2 is made, the author in 4:3 states his interpretation immediately following his quotation from Ps 95:11, “although His works were finished from the foundation of the world . He then supports this statement with the quotation. The rest is understand to be the blissful rest of one who has ceased from his labors. The “people of God” will enter God’s rest having also ceased from their own labor (4:10). A number of commentators go so far as to say that Ps 95 and Gen 2 were probably already connected in the synagogue lectionary for Saturday evening by the time of the writing of Hebrews.265 On what basis is this connection made? Certainly not gezera shawa from a Hebrew tradition since the linguistic similarity is based solely on the Greek katavpausi" (Ps 95:11) / katapauvw (Gen 2:2). Although Ellingworth finds some linkage of these texts in Targum Onkelos and Pseudo Jonathan, he also cites 2 Macc 15:1 in which the sabbath is referred to with the word found in Ps 95:11, hJ hJmevra th'" katapauvsew".266 This is a more likely candidate for philological parallel than rabbinic targums, midrashim, and talmudic tractates. It is remarkable that Attridge, who goes to such lengths to describe this section as a midrash, finds almost no parallels to rabbinic literature from 4:12 through to chapter seven. Suddenly the author of Hebrews becomes Greco-Jewish exhibiting Greek rhetoric and philosophical concepts similar to Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, and especially Philo. Is the only thing that makes chapters four and seven rabbinic and midrashic that they quote from two different, but related, texts? There 264Ibid. 265Ellingworth cites Schröger, Andriessen-Lenglet, Elbogen, Lane (p. 247). 266Ibid, p. 248. 103 is no need to appeal to these later sources for understanding Hebrews, as interesting and important as they are for studying formative Judaism. Once again the author employs the hortatory subjunctive with a significant word in paraenesis, spoudavswmen, to persuade his audience to progress and not to “fall.” Another characteristic paraenetic term is “example” uJpodeivgma (4:11). The author has developed the description of the people who followed Moses, yet were disobedient and did not enter God’s rest, as a negative example. Those who belong to Christ’s house should not follow this example. He refers explicitly to his pattern of finding warning in the scriptures in 4:12. The “word of God” is able to bring swift and decisive judgment against faithlessness and disobedience. Heb. 4:14–16 is another smooth transition back to the theme of Christ as High Priest, maintaining within it the essential concept of Jesus as “Son.” Once again we find the tell-tale word hooks such as sympathy, weakness, temptation, mercy. “Drawing near” is a phrase which will be repeated in 7:19, 25 and 10:22. Aaron (5:1–6:20) Synkrisis of Aaron and Christ (5:1–10) The next comparative exchange is a different type from the others we have seen so far in Hebrews. It is the type which handles several topics for one subject, and then covers the same topics for the second subject .267 Although an entire speech given in this way, according to Aphthonius, is “dull and unimpressive,”268 brief comparisons of this sort are able to remain lively. Plutarch, for example, is able to cover several topics within a single comparative exchange. As for the Gracchi (mevn), the greatest detractors and their worst enemies could not but allow that they had a genius to virtue beyond all other Romans, which was improved also by a generous education. 267Theon, X.76–80; Aphthonius p. 98, ll. 5–10. 268Nadeau, p. 277. 104 Agis and Cleomenes (dev) may be supposed to have had stronger natural gifts, since, though they wanted all the advantages of good education, and were bred up in those very customs, manners, and habits of living which had for a long time corrupted others, yet they were public examples of temperance and frugality.269 In this instance, Plutarch covers both the topic of virtue and the topic of education. The ordering of the items takes on a chiastic structure. In the following comparative exchange in Hebrews, we find that the author has first covered several topics having to do with the priesthood, and then he has turned to cover the same topics in relationship to Christ. Numerous scholars have detected in this a chiastic structure.270 The following outline traces the comparative exchange along with what seems to be a rather elaborate chiastic structure. Outline of Chiastic Comparative Structure Points of Comparison: High Priest (5:1-4) A Appointment (kaqivstatai) to High Priesthood (5:1) B Ability to have empathy (metriopaqei'n) with weak (5:2) C Makes offerings (prosfevrein) (5:3) D Honor (timh;n) of High Priesthood Not Taken (5:4) Points of Comparison: Christ (5:5-10) D' Christ did not glorify (ejdovxasen) Himself (5:5,6) C' Offers prayers (prosenevgka") (5:7) B' Learned obedience through experiences (e[paqen) (5:8) A' Designated (prosagoreuqei;") a High Priest (5:9,10) Whether one accepts the chiastic structure or not, there is no doubt that it is synkrisis. The purpose of the comparison is to show equality. That which distinguishes the office of high priest is applicable to Christ. The author goes to some lengths to demonstrate that Christ’s status is equal to that of high priest. For instance, Jesus is not known to have offered sacrifices on an altar as a high priest would. Nevertheless, the author uses the same Greek word prosfevrw, as he did in 5:3, to refer to Christ, “In the days of his flesh, Jesus 269Plutarch’s Lives, p. 1019. 270Ellingworth, p. 271 (with reservations); Moffatt, p. 57 (two points); Hans-Friedrich Weiß gives the following “V.1//V.9; V.2//VV.7F; V.4//VV.5F” in Der Brief an die Hebräer, ed. Ferdinand Hahn, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), n. 3, p. 302. 105 offered up prayers and supplications” (5:7). In the next comparison, the author will prove that Christ is superior to this priesthood because he is equal to the priesthood of Melchizedek. The Melchizedekan priesthood is introduced in conjunction with the declaration of Jesus’ Sonship. Having first emphasized the fact of his appointment as a priest, the author then hints at the eternality of that priesthood in 5:9,10: He became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. The result of this mention of Melchizedek is that the author introduces a parenthetical discourse in which he censures his audience for the inability to grasp the depth of what he is saying and its implications for their conduct. The transition is smooth since it is a prepositional phrase with a relative pronoun as its object, not a noun as some translate it (NASB) or even a grammatical break (NIV, RSV). In spite of the length of the digression, the author comes right back to the theme of Melchizedek forming an inclusion (6:20). This parenthesis takes on the tone of paraenesis with its censure (5:11–14), exhortation to progress (6:1–2), warning (6:4–8), and attempt not to be too harsh, but encouraging (6:9– 12). Paraenesis (5:11–6:20) In the section under consideration, the author halts his train of thought with the mention of Melchizedek. The audience is not mature enough in their understanding for him to continue. In his censure and exhortation, he uses an analogy of teaching about Christ with elementary education. Attridge calls this section a “complex of educational metaphors.”271 The fact that this parenthetical section emphasizes elementary education supports the view that Hebrews contains comparison modeled after the exercise as taught in the progymnasmata. This context of elementary education can be seen in the use of educational 271 Attridge, p. 158. 106 metaphors, in the analogy of progress in education, and in the explicit references to elementary education. The author of Hebrews clearly refers to the educational process when he tells his audience that “though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you” (5:12). This is a clear reference to education. However, the metaphorical language, while not being as explicit, is even more indicative of elementary education. In verses 5:12b–14 the author draws an analogy to the different kinds of food a person consumes depending on the level of maturity. He states, You need milk, not solid food; for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature. The metaphor of milk and solid food is a typical way of describing education in GrecoRoman literature. Paul used it in 1 Cor 3:1–9. It can be found in texts that also have reference to elementary education. Quintilian, for example, in his discussion of early education and of discipline uses this metaphor. I would even have it an object with teachers themselves to nourish minds that are still tender with more indulgence, and to allow them to be satiated, as it were, with the milk of more liberal studies. (Quintilian 2.4.5) We find this language in Epictetus Diss. 2.16.39: “Are you not willing, at this late date, like children, to be weaned and to partake of more solid food?” Philo’s discussion of the progress of the soul is closely related to the text in Hebrews. The connection of this language and elementary education is undeniable. But seeing that for babes milk is food, but for grown men wheaten bread, there must also be soul-nourishment, such as is milk-like, suited to the time of childhood, in the shape of the preliminary stages of school learning (tav th'" ejgkuklivou mousikh'" propaideuvmata) and, such as is adapted to grown men, in the shape of instructions leading the way through wisdom and temperance and virtue.” (Philo, Agric., 9) 107 Philo describes the goal of the “preliminary stages of school learning” to be a knowledge of wisdom, temperance and virtue. This is precisely what the author of Hebrews speaks of in vs. 14b. Another important term is used in 5:14b. The text reads “who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” The word gumnavzw literally means “to exercise naked” or less literally “to exercise”. The word also is used metaphorically in education. A term for the exercises in education was gumnavsma and then later proguvmnasma. Philo even uses this later expression in two places Legatio ad Gaium 30.7 and De vita Mosis 1.60.2 with reference to elementary training-schools. The term in Hebrews 5:14b is an educational metaphor. Not only is the language similar to Philo, as seen in Agric., 9 but the goal is the same. It is to know right from wrong. These educational metaphors demonstrate the context of this section as being elementary education. The same language is used in texts that discuss education. The relationship is clear. The author is saying that the audience has not progressed sufficiently in their knowledge and experience of Christ. Instead of being teachers and understanding that which is difficult to explain, they are like students who have not progressed in their education. As a consequence, they are not able to discern right from wrong. The student cannot become a child again and repeat his education. It is the same for the believer. In 6:1–3, the author exhorts his audience to progress further. They are not to lay again a foundation of the early experiences of a believer. He explains in vss. 4–6 that it is impossible to “fall away” and then be “renewed again.” It is not an argument based on theology but on historical necessity. To go back is again to crucify Christ. This is impossible. When it is understood that the context is education, this argument is made clearer. The progress in education is one-way. There is no going back. The following analogy makes the relationship to education clear. The author constructs an extended metaphor to illustrate his point. 108 For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned. (Hebrews 6:7–8). Attridge identifies many parallels to this imagery. Although he cites mainly classical and hellenistic authors, he concludes that “These parallels suggest that the image was a common one in Greek synagogue homiletics.”272 A stronger case — although equally as wrong — is made by Albert Vanhoye in his article “Heb 6,7-8 et le mashal rabbinique.”273 He relies on a work by Raymond Pautrel274 in which Pautrel identifies a pattern in rabbinic authors where two results are given for the same subject. For example, “A rich man had a vineyard. When he saw the good wine he said, ‘Return to my house.’ When he saw the sour wine he said, ‘Return to your house.’”275 Vanhoye makes a first observation. Nous trouvons là, d’abord, un indice supplémentaire du milieu d’origine de l’auteur. Celui-ci est d’éducation judéo-hellénistique, mais avec prédominance de la composante juive. L’influence grecque est beaucoup moins sensible dans son cas que dans celui de Philon, comme l’a démontré Williamson.276 Precisely the opposite is the case. As has already been demonstrated, it is not a Jewish milieu — Pautrel discussed rabbinic parallels — that we should look to, but the Greek, and one excellent example is Philo. This imagery is also used in educational contexts. Before looking at Philo, we will note how Quintilian uses this. In fact, Quintilian is giving an example on how to use comparison, in the sense of a metaphor. He says, “if you should say that the mind ought to be cultivated, you would compare it with land, which, if neglected, produces briars and thorns, but when tilled, supplies us with fruit (5.11.24).” 272 273 Ibid., p. 172. Albert Vanhoye, “Heb 6,7-8 et le mashal rabbinique.” in William C. Weinrich, ed., The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke (Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1984) 2.527-32. 274 Raymond Pautrel, “Les canons du mashal rabbinique,” RSR 26 (1936) 5-45. 275 Vanhoye, p. 529. 276 Ibid., p. 529. 109 Philo extends this agricultural motif in his treatment of the husbandry of the soul. Following the previous excerpt from Philo we read: For these when sown and planted in the mind will produce most beneficial fruits, namely fair and praiseworthy conduct. By means of this husbandry whatever trees of passions or vices have sprung up and grown tall, bearing mischief-dealing fruits, are cut down and cleared away, no minute portion even being allowed to survive, as the germ of new growths of sins to spring up later on. And should there be any trees capable of bearing neither wholesome nor harmful fruits, these it will cut down indeed, but not allow them to be made away with, but assign them to a use for which they are suited, setting them as pales and stakes to surround an encampment or to fence in a city in place of a wall. (Agric. 9–11)277 This imagery is found in Hebrews in a context of education and is found elsewhere in highly significant texts being used as a metaphor of education. This section in Hebrews is not a rabbinic meshalim but an illustrative, educational metaphor. Again, the parallels to Hebrews points to a context of education. In 5:12, the author uses an enigmatic expression “the elementary principles of the oracles of God (NASB).”278 Exegetes are divided on how to interpret the word stoicei'on in Gal 4:3,9; Col 2:8,20; Heb 5:12.279 One only has to compare the contexts of these three passages to understand its implications. The context of Gal 4:1ff — actually Gal 3:23ff — is the childhood experience of a boy and his education. At a young age he has adults who supervise him. When he is older he is set free from these restrictions. Paul compares this metaphorically then to the Jews who were in bondage to the “elementary principles of the world.” These are not “elemental spirits” but a reference to the law at the secondary level of the metaphor. The primary referent is “elementary teaching.” The context is the same in Col 2:8ff. 277 See also Agric. 17-19. 278 tav stoicei'a th'" ajrch'" tw'n logivwn tou' qeou'. 279 It is obvious that the term refers to the elements of nature in 110 2 Pet 3:10,12. See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ (NASB). Again, the context suggests that the term refers to teaching of an elementary sort. It is clearly denoting elementary philosophical instruction. The expression in Heb 5:12 also is referring to elementary teaching. The metaphor is based on elementary education. In its application it encompasses the basic instruction in scripture and the rituals that are involved in the initiation of a new convert. This is clear from the repetition of the phrase — in an abbreviated form — in 6:1. Therefore, in this section of 5:11 - 6:20, the author alludes to elementary education. He does so in his educational metaphors, in his analogy of progress, and in explicit references to elementary education. In Heb 6:9–12, the author is concerned that his censure has been too harsh. He encourages his audience that in spite of his harsh tones, “though we speak thus,” there are grounds for assurance that they are on the right track. He once again repeats the term nwqrov", “dull, sluggish, lazy” (5:11, 6:12). There is an amalgam of concepts here that is significant. The progress of knowledge and understanding is interrelated with the progress in character and conduct. Not only should these people continue to endure hardship and remain faithful to Christ, they should also be at an advanced level of understanding and interpreting the word of God. The two go hand-in-hand. The fact that the author is presenting his historical and textual parallels for hortatory purposes rather than polemical is reaffirmed in 6:12. He wants his audience to be imitator’s mimhtaiv of those he is discussing. It has been mainly negative examples, but he will flood them with positive examples in chapter 11. A transitional section (6:13–20) closes the inclusio by which the author brings his audience back to the topic at hand, the priesthood of Melchizedek. 111 Melchizedek (7:1–8:3) This section will be fully discussed in the following chapter. An overview will be presented here in order to maintain the flow of the present synopsis. What is described here will be developed subsequently. Synkrisis of Melchizedek and Christ (7:1–25) As the inclusio comes full circle, the author takes up this theme of Melchizedek. Verses one and two constitute a narration in which the facts related to Melchizedek are presented. With a poetic flourish, the author begins to enumerate the qualities of Melchizedek based on the common topics of epideictic. Verse four states the subject of the comparative exchanges which will follow: the greatness of the priesthood of Melchizedek. The first comparative exchange (7:5–7) is centered on the topic of action. Melchizedek was the first priest to collect tithes, and that was from Abraham, the “firstfather.” In the next exchange (7:8–10), the author compares the status of the two, showing that Melchizedek, in effect, collected tithes from Levi himself. The comparative exchanges begin at 7:11 to involve the levitical priests and Jesus. In 7:11–17, Jesus is shown to have a different ancestry than the levites, but yet He is a priest of a different order, the perpetual priesthood of Melchizedek. His achievements are compared in three exchanges 7:18–19; 7:20–22; 7:23–25. The verdict is that Jesus is a superior high priest, since He is able, by virtue of his eternality and indissoluble priesthood, to serve effectively and efficaciously. Paraenesis (7:26–8:3) The paraenetic section includes 7:26–28 and 8:1–3. In the former, the author declares the suitability of this high priest. Since this high priest is characterized as one who does not need personal cleansing of sins, nor is He susceptible to the vagaries of life and death, He is qualified to serve as High Priest. He is, in fact, the Son. 112 In a recapitulation, the author hits on the main idea. His audience is to know that they have this high priest who works on their behalf. They should be emboldened by this. By way of transition, the author begins to use language reminiscent of the tabernacle described in the ancient scriptures. Covenant (8:4–12:29) The next subject for comparison is the ancient covenant portrayed in scripture. In two comparative exchanges, the author describes the system of purification and sanctification in terms of a heavenly tabernacle within which Jesus is able to bring about a lasting and complete salvation. Synkrisis of First Covenant and New Covenant (8:4–9:12) The first comparative exchange takes place in 8:4–13. It is marked by the mevn … dev construction in 8:4 & 8:6. The author has in mind the biblical account of Moses and the tabernacle. The heavenly pattern of the tabernacle (Exod 24:40) is described in platonic terms as the reality of which the earthly tabernacle is the copy and shadow. Clearly the ancient scripture is more determinant for the author than Plato as he relates this mountain-top language with what he finds in the prophecy of Jeremiah 31 — a foreshadowing of a new covenant which will bring about a transformation in the house of Israel. The second comparative exchange occurs in 9:1–12. This is the longest mevn … dev construction in Hebrews. The mevn appears in 9:1 and the subject remains focused on the ancient tabernacle until the dev of 9:11 in which the subject changes to Christ. The pronouns of 9:14 and 10:10 suggest that 9:13–10:18 should be considered part of the paraenesis. The author definitely and definitively turns to the audience in exhortation in 10:19. What is said in the paraenetic section always needs to be used to interpret the goal of the comparisons. An interesting expression can be found in 9:9 which is relevant to the issue of the literary structure and genre. The Greek is h[ti" parabolh; eij" to;n kairo;n 113 to;n ejn v esthkovta. The normal rendering is “which is a symbol for the present time.” There are several factors which suggest the possibility of a different translation. A synonym for sugkrivnw is parabavllw. This latter term appears frequntly in the progymnasmatic authors and in Plutarch’s comparisons. Parabolh; is, of course, the noun form of parabavllw. It has the meaning of comparison. 280 When orators refer to the occasion of their speech, they use an expression similar to Heb 9:9. Hyperides’ Funeral Speech (3.6–7) is a typical example. In the case of Athens, to recount in detail the benefits which she has previously conferred upon the whole of Greece would be a task too great to compass in the time we have (ou[te oJ crovno" oJ parw;n iJkanov"), nor is the occasion one for lengthy speaking (ou[te oJ kairo;" aJrmovttwn tw/' makrologei'n).281 The author of Fourth Maccabees also uses this expression. In 1:10 he writes, “On account of their virtues, therefore, it is fitting for me to praise those men on this occasion (kata; tou'ton to;n kairo;n) who died with their mother for the sake of nobleness and goodness.” Again in 3:19 “But now again the occasion (oJ kairo;") calls us to a demonstration of the history of temperate reasoning.” This phrase in 9:9, therefore, could be translated, “which is a comparison for the present occasion.” The author is explicitly identifying his writing as a comparison. Paraenesis (9:13–12:29) Three paraenetic sections make up the final exhortation of the main body of Hebrews. The section comprising 10:19–39 is an encouragement to move forward with Jesus as priest (10:19–25) and a warning (10:26–31) to avoid the pitfall of disobedience which characterized the Israelites in the wilderness. To be unfaithful and disobedient to Jesus is equivalent to “trampling under foot the Son of God” (10:29). By a fortiori, if those Israelites who set aside the Law of Moses received a punishment, there will be an even greater punishment 280Polybius, History I.2.2. has suvgkrisi" and parabolhv in the same context. 281J. O. Burtt, Minor Attic Orators, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980), p. 539. 114 for those who do not remain faithful and do not progress toward the moral and spiritual goal of full maturity. Jesus has provided the way to do this. In a remarkable table of exempla, the author lists the heroes spanning the rolls of ancient scripture (or cover-to-cover). With the rhetorical device of anaphora, the author repeats the word pivstei at the beginning of successive clauses. One after another, he praises the saints who model the virtues he wants to see in the members of his audience. In a final and climactic paraenesis in 12:18–29, the author brings together the images developed and compared in the preceding sections. The warning of 12:25 encapsulates the thrust of the entire work “See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less shall we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven.” Their response is summed up in the 12:28–29, “thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe; for our God is a consuming fire.” Epistolary Appendix (13:1–25) While the last chapter of Hebrews has the appearance of miscellaneous paraenesis, there is much that can be said for its importance and continuity with the rest of Hebrews. How does one “offer to God acceptable worship?” It is in keeping with the rhetorical and philosophical context to answer that question with the miscellaneous moral code in 13:1–17. The topic of sacrifice and tabernacle in 13:10–14 are also reflective of what has preceded. It is virtually impossible — without benefit of manuscript evidence — to know whether Hebrews was a speech presented to a group with personal comments later attached to a written version, or if it was written to simulate an oral presentation with the purpose of being sent to the group with personal comments at the end. In any case, what we must work with is what has been transmitted to us. The overview we have presented shows that Hebrews belongs to the genre of synkrisis. Commentators, even when they describe something as midrash, continually 115 designate the argument as comparison. No one would deny that Hebrews was written to show the superiority of Christ. What has been known for centuries about Hebrews supports the conclusion which has been virtually lost for centuries, that Hebrews is a series of comparisons of Christ leading to a practical response of following Him more faithfully. The closer reading of the text in the next chapter will confirm that this method of interpreting Hebrews more accurately describes the flow of the argument, but, in addition, will provide better solutions to interpretive enigmas. 116 CHAPTER FOUR: COMPARISON IN HEBREWS 7 Many commentators interpret this section as a midrash because of the quotation of Scripture. Yet they describe the chapter as a comparison. Attridge, for example, refers to it as comparison six times. Buchanan calls it a comparison twice. This statement from Fitzmyer is indeed ironical: “Before turning to the new data, I must stress with several modern writers that the detailed comparison of Christ and Melchizedek in Heb 7 is an excellent example of a midrash on Gn 14:18-20.”282 Actually, it is an excellent example of a comparison and only appears to have some things in common with midrash.283 Upon closer examination, the features of this chapter do not function as a midrash would but do cohere as elements of a suvgkrisi". Our procedure will be to demonstrate the features of chapter seven which indicate synkrisis. The most important indications are the common topics and the structure of comparative exchange. The overall tenor of the passage is indicative of Greek rhetoric and philosophical argumentation. There is no need to appeal to later rabbinic texts in order to understand the argument and concepts in chapter seven. If one studies the rhetorical handbooks and model speeches, and then reads the actual speeches, one will generally find less rigidity, more spontaneity, and a general adaptation of the guidelines to the particular situation and subject. Plutarch, for example, does not follow the same rigid set of topics for each of his comparisons. He finds whatever marks the individuals as similar and draws comparisons on that basis. There is, however, a tendency to formulate the comparative exchanges based on common topics. What we find in chapter seven is this same type of practice. The author has built his comparisons based on those things which are points of similarity in order to show the superiority of the priest282Fitzmyer, p. 221,22. 283Bloch distinguishes the function of this “midrash” from others in that the author wished to draw from the biblical texts apologetic arguments rather than answers to actual questions (Bloch, col. 1279). 117 hood of Melchizedek to that of the Levitical priesthood and, consequently, since Jesus’ priesthood is equal to that of Melchizedek, that Jesus is a superior high priest. The main purpose of this argument is not so much a polemical or dogmatic one, but it consists of moral exhortation: Since Jesus is a superior high priest, He is able to provide a constancy of mediation by which the people of God will be able to endure temptation to sin and the hardship of suffering in order to remain faithful to God to the very end. The basic outline of 7:1–25 is given below. Outline of Hebrews 7:1–25 1. 2. Introduction 1.1. Narration (7:1–2a) 1.2. Meaning of Name (7:2b) 1.3. Poetic Description of Topics (7:3) 1.3.1. Parentage & Genealogy (7:3a) 1.3.2. Birth & End of Life (7:3b) 1.3.3. Office Remains in Perpetuity (7:3c) 1.4. Introductory Statement — Greatness of Melchizedek (7:4) Comparative Exchanges (7:5–25) 2.1. Action — First Done (7:5–7) 2.2. Status (7:8–10) 2.3. Tribal Ancestry (7:11–17) 2.4. Achievements 2.4.1. Introduction of Better Hope (7:18–19) 2.4.2. Guarantee of Better Covenant (7:20–22) 2.4.3. Long Lasting & For Others (7:23–25) The following discussion is not intended to be a full exegetical treatment of every aspect of this rather long section. We will develop a reading of the text which places it within its rhetorical context. The Greek text of the Nestle-Aland 26th edition will be presented along with an English translation which will highlight this particular way of looking at the text. 1. Introduction (7:1–4) In the first four verses, the author establishes the basis for the comparison. He has already quoted the text concerning Melchizedek several times. He left off with this at 5:10 and has 118 come back to this subject in 6:20. The quotation from Ps 110:4 has three main points: (1) the one addressed is called a high priest; (2) he holds the office “forever” eij" to;n aijwn ' a; (3) it is a Melchizedekan order of priesthood. 1.1. Narration (7:1–2a) (7:1) Ou|to" ga;r oJ Melcisevdek, basileu;" Salhvm, iJereu;" tou' qeou' tou' uJyivstou, oJ sunanthvsa" ÆAbraa;m uJpostrevfonti ajpo; th'" koph'" tw'n basilevwn kai; eujloghvsa" aujtovn, (7:2) w|/ kai; dekavthn ajpo; pavntwn ejmevrisen ÆAbraavm, (7:1) For this one is the Melchizedek, King of Salem … a priest of the Most High God, the one who met Abraham returning from the slaughter … of the kings … and who blessed him, (7:2) to whom also Abraham divided a tenth from all. The author first explains who this character is with a narration constructed from the Genesis 14:17–19 account. In the translation above, words taken from the Genesis text are italicized, and ellipses designate where something has been left out from the original account. Whether the author was being selective or simply remembered the account the best he could is impossible to know. In any case, it is a concise statement of the events having to do with Melchizedek. Aristotle described narration in ceremonial oratory — to which comparison is related — as not being continuous but intermittent. There must, of course, be some survey of the actions that form the subjectmatter of the speech. You will have to recall well-known deeds among others; and because they are well-known, the hearer usually needs no narration of them; none, for instance, if your object is the praise of Achilles; we all know the facts of his life—what you have to do is to apply those facts. But if your object is the praise of Critias, you must narrate his deeds, which not many people know of. The narration should depict character; to which end you must know what makes it do so. One such thing is the indication of moral purpose; the quality of purpose indicated determines the quality of character depicted and is itself determined by the end pursued. (Rhetorica, 1416b–1417a) Usually there is no need for a comparison to begin with a narrative or description. Comparisons are normally made of stock figures from history and mythology. In the case 119 of Plutarch’s comparisons in the Lives, the biographical sections preclude any need for narration within the comparisons. Plutarch does, however, begin the comparisons with a statement referring to what has been learned about the subjects for comparison. This is what I have learnt of Romulus and Theseus, worthy of memory (a[xia mnhvmh"). It seems, first of all… (Thes.-Rom. synk. 1.1). Having thus finished the lives (dielhluvqamen bivon) of Lycurgus and Numa, we shall now, though the work be difficult, put together their points of difference as they lie here before our view. Their points of likeness are obvious… (Lyc.-Numa synk. 1.1). We have here had two lives (OiJ me;n ou\n bivoi tw'n ajndrw'n toiauvthn e[cousin iJstorivan) rich in examples (polla; kai; kala; paradeivgmata), both of civil and military excellence . Let us first compare the two men in their warlike capacity (Per.-Fab. synk. 1.1). Having described all their actions (∆Ekkeimevnwn de; tw'n pravxewn) that seem to deserve commemoration, their military ones, we may say, incline the balance very decidely upon neither side. They both, in pretty equal measure… (Cor.-Alcib. synk. 1.1). Such being the story of these two great men’s lives (Toiouvtwn de; tw'n kata; th;n iJstorivan o[ntwn), without doubt in the comparison very little difference will be found between them (dh'lon wJ" oujk e[cei polla;" diafora;" oujd- ajnomoiovthta" hJ suvgkrisi") (Aem.-Tim. synk. 1.1). These are the memorable things I have found in historians (ajnagrafh'" a[xia tw'n iJstorhmevnwn) concerning Marcellus and Pelopidas. Betwixt which two great men, though in natural character and manners they nearly resemble each other… (Pel.-Marc. synk. 1.1). Having mentioned the most memorable actions (ajxivwn mnhvmh") of these great men, if we now compare (parateqei;") the whole life of the one with that of the other, it will not be easy to discern the difference between them… (Arist.-Cato Maj. synk. 1.1) First then, as for the greatness of the benefits (megevqei tw'n eujergesiw'n) which Titus conferred on Greece, neither Philopoemen, nor many braver men than he, can make good the parallel (parabavllein) (Phil.-Flam. synk. 1.1). Having completed (dielhluvqamen) this Life also, come we now to the comparison (suvgkrisin). That which was common to them both was that they were founders of their own greatness… (Lys.-Sulla synk. 1.1). 120 In the comparison (ÆEn de; th'/ sugkrivsei prw'ton) of these two, first, if we compare (paraballovmeno")… (Nic.-Crass. synk. 1.1). These are the most remarkable passages that are come to our knowledge (mnhvmh" a[xia pareilhvfamen) concerning Eumenes and Sertorius. In comparing (sugkrivsei) their lives, we may observe that this was common to them both… (Sert.-Eum. synk. 1.1). Thus having drawn out the history of the lives (Ekkeimevnwn ou\n tw'n bivwn) of Agesilaus and Pompey, the next thing is to compare them (Ages.- Pomp. synk. 1.1). Having given an account (dihghvsew") severally of these persons, it remains only that we should take a view of them in comparison with one another (ejk parallhvlou tw'n bivwn) (Ag./Cleom.-Gracchi synk. 1.1). These are the most memorable circumstances recorded in history (ÕA … a[xia mnhvmh" … tw'n iJstoroumevnwn) of Demosthenes and Cicero which have come to our knowledge (Demosth.-Cic. synk. 1.1). There are noble points in abundance in the characters of these two men, and one to be first mentioned is their attaining such a height of greatness upon such inconsiderable means (tou' megivstou" ejlacivstai" ajformai'" genevsqai) (Dion-Brut. synk. 1.1). From these examples it is evident that Plutarch introduced his synkriseis with a statement regarding the history and narrative of the subjects for comparison. In his situation the lives of the subjects had already been told. The author of Hebrews first gives a brief history of what is significant regarding Melchizedek. Heb 7:1–2 is not a quotation, but only an allusion. The author does not use any introductory formula. The words are not an exact quotation of any extant text. It appears to be only a selective rendering highlighting the salient features of the events surrounding this figure Melchizedek about whom the only other information is the Psalms reference. It functions as a narrative upon which the comparison will be made. 1.2. Meaning of Name (7:2b) prw'ton me;n eJrmhneuovmeno" basileu;" dikaiosuvnh" e[peita de; kai; basileu;" Salhvm, o{ ejstin basileu;" eijrhvnh", 121 First of all, [Melchizedek] is in one way interpreted “king of righteousness,” but then also in another way “king of Salem,” which means “king of peace.” What is the most peculiar about this verse is that the author makes no use of this word study. Virtually no relevance comes from it. There is no development of the concept of righeousness; there is no clear application of Salem with Jerusalem; there is virtually no argument built on kingship and messianism. All that is given is a pedantic etymological and philological treatment of the name Melchizedek. It is much less than we would expect if this were a true midrash in the rabbinic style.284 Certainly the rabbis were not the only ones to play with the meaning of names. Philo, for example, frequently gives the meaning of names in his De Congressu (2, 20, 25, 30, 36, 40, 41–47, etc.). It is also part of Greek rhetoric. Aristotle described this form of argument based on names. Another line is to draw meanings from names. Sophocles, for instance, says, “O steel in heart as thou art steel in name.” This line of argument is common in praise of the gods. Thus, too, Conon called Thrasybulus rash in counsel. And Herodicus said of Thrasymachus, “You are always bold in battle”; of Polus, “you are always a colt”; and of the legislator Draco that his laws were those not of a human being but of a dragon, so savage were they. And, in Euripides, Hecuba says of Aphrodite, “Her name and Folly’s lightly begin alike,” and Chaeremon writes, “Pentheus — a name foreshadowing grief to come.” (Rhetorica, 1400b.6) Theon also makes it part of encomium. It is clever sometimes to compose an encomium on the basis of the meaning of names, the same name, or namesakes, if it is not altogether coarse and ridiculous. And so, on the basis of the meaning of names: for example, Demosthenes, that he was, so to speak, the strength of the people. On the basis of the same name: when someone happens to have the same name as a man who has already been honored. On the basis of namesakes: for example, Pericles surnamed Olympian because of the greatness in his accomplishments (Progymnasmata, IX,49–55).285 What we find in Hebrews 7:2 is more in keeping with this tradition in Greek rhetoric than it is the foundation for midrash. 284Attridge refers to it as “standard Jewish interpretations” and also notes the way in which the author does not develop these themes. (p. 189). 285Butts, p. 473. 122 1.3. Poetic Description of Topics (7:3) Comparisons normally proceed along a standard set of topics. They typically follow a chronological order, but this is not always the case. In the Rhetoric to Alexander we find a clear delineation of the order of topics which should be covered (1440b,14–1441b,3; cf. Rhetorica ad Herennium III.7.13–8.15).286 Similar topics are covered by Theon and the other progymnasmatic writers. Birth is one of the first topics. The Rhetoric to Alexander next has geneaology (1440b,24). A broad topic under which many items may be discussed is achievement (pra'xi"). The topics which Plutarch covers in his comparisons are wide ranging, but still typical of encomium. One will find such topics as achievements; actions; ancestors; battles, wars, military exploits, victories, trophies; birth; character; childhood; death; education; faults; friends; gifts, benefactions; habits; honor; innovations; laws enacted; marriage, wife, children, family; office; parents; policies (domestic, civil); rearing; rule; supernatural favor; titles; virtues; voyages; wealth; youth. Throughout the rest of Hebrews chapter seven, there is an attention given to these common topics. An examination of the function of these topics will provide a better explanation for the flow of the text than has been given by appeals to midrash and rabbinic hermeneutics. 1.3.1. Parentage & Genealogy (7:3a) (7:3a) ajpavtwr, ajmhvtwr, ajgenealovghto", (7:3a) Without mention of father, mother, or genealogy. Verse three is recognized for its “quasi-poetic flavor.”287 The asyndeton construction (without intervening conjunctions) is forceful by its terseness. The first two words are 286This is discussed in the above section on the Rhetoric to Alexander in chapter four. 287Attridge, p. 189–90. There is no need to construct a form-critical hypothesis about an early hymn being used by the author here. This is as if to say that a prose author is incapable of writing in a poetic fashion. It is interesting that these three epithets appear in Apocalypse of Abraham 17:10 [Atrridge n. 54, p. 190 and Weiß n. 16, p. 377 both have reference as 17:9; according to R. Rubinkiewicz in “Apocalypse of Abraham: A New Translation and Introduction” in The Old 123 linked together by their isocolon (equal number of syllables), and are connected with the third by alliteration. Attridge attributes the interpretive device which infers these characteristics of Melchizedek to an argument from silence found both in “Philo and rabbinic exegetes.”288 The assumption is that the author of Hebrews is making a theological statement that Melchizedek did not have a mother or father because there is no mention of them. This is indeed a strange exegetical twist by the author, if that is in fact what he means. The references Attridge gives to Philo (Leg. all. 2.55; 3.79; Abr. 31) do not have the same implications. The reference to the Talmud is even less satisfying. Commentators, since the publication of H. L Strack and Paul Billerbeck’s Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch have cited the rabbinic dictum Quod non in Thora, non in mundo.289 Although Spicq does give a reference to San. 107b and Genesis Rabbah 65,290 others give the supporting evidence for this rabbinic principle in Philo.291 This confusion is the result of a wrong approach to Hebrews. Hans-Friedrich Weiß draws attention to this weakness. Gegen solche Erklärung spricht vor allem die Tatsache, daß zumindest die beiden Prädikationen ajpavtwr und ajmhvtwr ganz allgemein in der antiken Welt — sowohl im griechisch-hellenistischen Raum als auch im Bereich des Judentums — die Bedeutung von “divine predictions” haben, also jeweils die göttlich Herkunft und Wesenart bezeichnen.292 Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983) 1:697 it appears as 17:10.] in a hymn to the God of Israel. The relationship between this text and Hebrews is difficult to assess. 288Attridge, p. 190. 289Strack-Billerbeck, 3:694–95. See for example Schröger, p. 136; Attridge, p. 190; Buchanan, p. 119; Spicq 2:209; Ellingworth, p. 358; Bruce, p. 136. 290Spicq, n. 3, 2:209. 291“L’argument de silence, qui applique à l’Écriture le principe juridique : Ce qui ne peut être produit est regardé comme inexistant, est utilisé par les Rabbins. Il est couramment mis en œuvre par Philon dans son exégèse biblique (Spicq, 2:208f, n. 4).” 292Weiß, p. 377. 124 It is argued that, since these terms are found in Greek literature, there is little need to find parallels elsewhere. This still assumes that the author of Hebrews is involved in a doctrinal discussion about the divinity of Melchizedek. F. F. Bruce makes an interesting comment in this regard. If you were to put the point to the author of Hebrews that Melchizedek came from a “dynasty of priest-kings in which he had both predecessors and successors,” he would have agreed, but would have considered it irrelevant to his purposes.293 Bruce adds, The important consideration was the account given of Melchizedek in holy writ. … Melchizedek remains a priest continually for the duration of his appearance in the biblical narrative; but in the antitype Christ remains a priest continually without qualification.294 Although Bruce comes about it a different way, this is precisely the textual argument the author is making. The loose translation given above attempts to highlight the significance of this. The author of Hebrews is following the normal pattern of drawing comparisons according to the common topics. If his point is that Melchizedek is immortal because he existed apart from the disadvantages of mortal parentage, then why also mention that Melchizedek was “without genealogy?” What is the point if this is a theological argument about divinity and immortality? In fact, the reference to genealogy in verse six makes it clear that the point is that his geneaology is not from any tribe, especially not from Levi. It makes more sense that the author has this combination of parentage and genealogy which is so typical in Greek rhetoric.295 These topics continue in the next phrase. 1.3.2. Birth & End of Life (7:3b) mhvte ajrch;n hJmerw'n mhvte zwh'" tevlo" e[cwn, neither mention of birth nor having mention of death, 293Bruce, p. 137. 294Ibid., pp. 137–38. 295Aphthonius, in his model comparison of Achilles and Hector, traces the genealogy of Achilles (son of Peleus, Peleus of Aeacus, and Aeacus of Zeus) and of Hector (Priam and Laomedon, Laomedon from Dardanus, Dardanus of Zeus). The Rhetoric to Alexander discusses the proper way to employ genealogy (1440b,29–1441a,12). 125 The rhythmic language continues in this polysyndeton “neither…nor” construction. In addition, the author appears to use homoioteleuton by forming the same sound at the end of the phrases. This highly stylized and poetic clause presents two more of the common topics found as introductory in encomia and in comparisons. The birth and death of individuals are almost always mentioned in comparisons. In the Aphthonius’ model comparison of Achilles and Hector, this plays an important role. Their births are mentioned first in the comparison — it follows a chronological order. At the end of the comparison, birth and death are discussed together. kai; gegonovte" a[mfw para; ajnh/revqhsan: o{qen ga;r to; tevlo" eijlhvfasin: o{son dh; qavnato", tosou'ton ÓEktwr qew'n, ejk qew'n gevno", kai; to; tou' bivou paraplhvsion bivo" kai; ÒAxillei' paraplhvsio". (Aphthonius, Progymnasmata, X, p. 100, 15–18 [Spengel]) And both, having sprung from gods, were taken off by gods; whence they drew their beginning, they also derived the end of their lives. To the degree that there was similarity in life and in death, by that degree is Hector on a par with Achilles.296 In this case, Aphthonius is trying to show the greatness of Hector by comparing him to Achilles. The final comparative exchange emphasizes the similarity of birth and death. Much of the difficulty in interpreting 7:3b arises from what appears to be the author's claim that Melchizedek is a semi-divine being. This sends scholars scrambling to find parallels in the Qumran literature (11Q Melch.), 2 Enoch, and in the Nag Hammadi tractate Melchizedek (NHC 9, 1).297 Although it is not central to the overall argument, it is contended that the author of Hebrews is only making note of what is — or isn’t — in the narrative of the Genesis account. The frame of reference is the Psalms passage (“a priest forever”), and the impetus is the pattern of the common topics for comparison. 296Nadeau, p. 277–78. 297See Attridge's excursus, pp. 192–93. 126 1.3.3. Office (7:3c) ajfwmoiwmevno" de; tw'/ uiJw'/ tou' qeou', mevnei iJereu;" eij" to; dihnekev". but in comparison to the Son of God, he remains a priest in perpetuity. This poetic description of Melchizedek culminates in 7:3c. A major topic in the comparison of Melchizedek is the office of priest. The perpetual condition of this office will become the focus in the succeeding comparative exchanges. What is more important here than the topic is the verb with which the author begins this final clause. The KJV reads “but made like unto the Son of God….” This translation has tended to influence the reading of the text. It implies a past tense and the idea of creation: God created Melchizedek to be like the Son of God. The tense, however, is present, and the concept of creation depends on the context in which the word appears. A better grammatical translation is “being likened” or “resembling.” An even better translation, taking into account the rhetorical context, is the one we have given above. Support for this interpretation is Plato’s use of the word in Republic 517b. tauvthn toivnun, h\n d- ejgwv, th;n eijkovna, w\ fivle Glauvkwn, prosaptevon a{pasan toi'" e[mprosqen legomevnoi", th;n me;n di- o[yew" fainomevnhn e{dran th/' tou' desmwthrivou oijkhvsei ajfomoiou'nta, to; de; tou' puro;" ejn aujth/' fw'" th/' tou' hJlivou dunavmei: This image then, dear Glaucon, we must apply as a whole to all that has been said, [517b] likening the region revealed through sight to the habitation of the prison, and the light of the fire in it to the power of the sun. We could translate this, starting at 517b, “comparing, on the one hand, the region revealed through sight to the habitation of the prison, and, on the other hand, the light of the fire in it to the power of the sun.” The context is clearly that of drawing comparisons. Plato uses this word in this way again in Republic 564b. dh; ajfomoiou'men khfh'si, tou;" me;n kevntra e[cousi, tou;" de; ajkevntroi". 127 We were likening them to drones, some equipped with stings and others stingless. Again, the context is comparison, “we are comparing them to drones, some, on the one hand have stingers, and, on the other hand, some are stingless.” Finding parallels in Plato is more credible than appeals to the Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Nag Hammadi. There is only a need for such far-reaching studies if the meaning is that Melchizedek was created a semi-divine being. It must be pointed out, however, that the tense here is present, not past. With both the meaning of the word, the tense of the verb, and the context of the passage, the best understanding is the one we have presented. Paraphrased, “Since, in the text of Genesis, Melchizedek is being compared to the Son of God, he remains a priest even today.” The difficulty of this passage is reflected in the commentaries. Moffat puts the wording this way, “‘made to resemble’ (i.e. in scripture).”298 Attridge is hesitant and tries to show both sides of this issue. What he says is highly instructive and will be quoted fully. While the function of the comparison between Melchizedek and Christ is clear, the precise nature of the comparison and the status of Melchizedek himself is not. Exegetes have long been divided on the issue of whether Melchizedek is simply a scriptural symbol or a heavenly being of some sort. In support of the first alternative is the fact that the comparison proceeds primarily on a literary level. Melchizedek is “likened” to Christ, and it is “testified” that he lives. The author appears to be deliverately noncommittal about the figure of Melchizedek himself. Furthermore, he does not advance any explicit speculation about Melchizedek. He neither explains how his “eternal priesthood” relates to that of Christ, nor does he polemicize aginst him as a rival to Christ. He would appear, like Philo, to be uninterested in the person of Melchizedek himself and only concerned with what he represents.299 Leaving aside Attridge’s constant reference to this passage as comparison in spite of his explicit designation of midrash, he expresses well the problem with the text. These problems are dissipated when understood in the context of synkrisis. 298Moffat, p. 93. 299Attridge, p. 191. 128 1.4. Introductory Statement — Greatness of Melchizedek (7:4) (7:4) Qewrei'te de; phlivko" ou|to" w|/ »kai;¼ dekavthn ÆAbraa;m e[dwken ejk tw'n ajkroqinivwn oJ patriavrch". Now observe how great is this one to whom Abraham the “first-father” gave a tenth from his spoils. As illustrated above in the catena of introductory passages from Plutarch, a constant theme is the greatness of the individuals being compared. This is the precise goal of comparison. In Heb 7:4, the author calls the audience to “listen” to him extol the greatness of Melchizedek.300 He will do this by a series of comparative exchanges which center on the topics applicable in this case. 2. Comparative Exchanges (7:5–25) Almost the rest of Hebrews chapter seven (5–25) is constructed around comparative exchanges. The topics follow the order of action, status, ancestry, and achievements. The first comparative exchange shows that the Melchizedek of Genesis is superior to the Levites of Numbers. After this the comparative exchanges will prove the superiority of Jesus as a high priest like Melchizedek. 2.1. Action — First Done (7:5–7) (7:5) kai; oiJ me;n ejk tw'n uiJw'n Leui; th;n iJerateivan lambavnonte" ejntolh;n e[cousin ajpodekatou'n to;n lao;n kata; to;n novmon, tou't- e[stin tou;" ajdelfou;" aujtw'n, kaivper ejxelhluqovta" ejk th'" ojsfuvo" ÆAbraavm: (7:6) oJ de; mh; genealogouvmeno" ejx aujtw'n dedekavtwken ÆAbraavm, kai; to;n e[conta ta;" ejpaggeliva" eujlovghken. (7:7) cwri;" de; pavsh" ajntilogiva" to; e[latton uJpo; tou' kreivttono" eujlogei'tai. (7:5) On the one hand, those of the sons of Levi who receive the priesthood have a commandment, according to the law, to take a tithe from the 300A similar phraseology is IV Macc 14:13: Qewrei'te de; pw'" poluvplokov" “And consider how comprehensive….” 129 people, that is, their brothers, though having derived from the loins of Abraham. (7:6) On the other hand, the one whose genealogy is not traced from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promise. (7:7) Without dispute, the lesser is blessed by the greater. The Levitical law provides for the priests to tax the people. They are, the author points out, descendants of Abraham. The touche is that Melchizedek did one better. He received a tithe from Abraham himself —and gave him a blessing. These verses are clearly constructed as a comparative exchange. The mevn … dev construction and the pronominal articles are apparent features. The subject shifts from one to the next. The literary style is typical of synkrisis. One of the first topics after discussing the external and bodily qualities was actions — a quality of the soul. Theon defines one of the reasons for an action being praiseworthy as having been done first.301 Aristotle also places importance on this. There are, also, many useful ways of heightening the effect of praise. We must, for instance, point out that a man is the only one, or the first, or almost the only one who has done something, or that he has done it better than any one else; all these distinctions are honourable. (Rhetorica, 1368a,4) This attribute characterizes the comparative exchange here. Melchizedek was the first priest and, as such, received tithes before the Levitical priests.302 Commentators are confused by the “lesser/greater” statement of our author. As Attridge says, “It is hardly self-evident that the ‘lesser’ is always blessed by the ‘greater’ since there are numerous biblical examples of inferiors blessing their superiors.”303 The author’s comment in 7:7 is not a maxim, specific or general. It is a judgment based on the comparison. Plutarch illustrates this aspect of comparison already discussed above. Frequently he states his judgment about whether one or the other of the subjects is greater. 301Theon, “On the Encomium and the Denunciation,” in Progymnasmata, IX.36 [Butts]. 302This characteristic actually pervades Hebrews in the word ajrchv and its compound forms. The term “high priest” denotes the priest “first in line,” but could also have the connotation of “first in time.” 303Attridge, p. 196. 130 (3.5) plhvqei d- oujd- a[xion parabalei'n toi'" ejpi; Leuvkollon sunelqou'si tou;" uJpo; Kivmwno" krathqevnta". (3.6) ÓWste pavnth/ metalambavnonti dusdiaivthton ei\nai th;n krivsin: ejpei; kai; to; daimovnion ajmfotevroi" e[oiken eujmene;" genevsqai, tw'/ me;n a} crh; katorqou'n, tw'/ d- a} fulavttesqai »crh;¼ promhnu'on, w{ste kai; th;n para; tw'n qew'n yh'fon aujtoi'" uJpavrcein wJ" ajgaqoi'" kai; qeivoi" th;n fuvsin ajmfotevroi". (Cim.-Luc. synk. 3.5–6) There is no comparison between the numbers which came against Lucullus and those subdued by Cimon. All which things being rightly considered, it is a hard matter to give judgment. For supernatural favour also appears to have attended both of them, directing the one what to do, the other what to avoid, and thus they have, both of them, so to say, the vote of the gods, to declare them noble and divine characters.304 The language of 7:7 is typical of comparison. It is obvious that the words “lesser” and “greater” are comparatives. The statement is indicative of the judgment of superiority that takes place in comparisons. Commentators who continually try to find parallels in rabbinic literature suddenly use rabbinic citations to argue against the author of Hebrews at this point based on the assumption of doctrinal exposition that the author is stating a universal truth.305 Is Hebrews rabbinic or isn’t it? This inconsistency underlines the weakness of the traditional approach. 2.2. Status (7:8–10) (7:8) kai; w|de me;n dekavta" ajpoqnhv/skonte" a[nqrwpoi lambavnousin, ejkei' de; marturouvmeno" o{ti zh'./ (7:9) kai; wJ" e[po" eijpei'n, di- ÆAbraa;m kai; Leui; oJ dekavta" lambavnwn dedekavtwtai, (7:10) e[ti ga;r ejn th'/ ojsfuvi> tou' patro;" h\n o{te sunhvnthsen aujtw'/ Melcisevdek. (7:8) And here, on the one hand, men who have since died receive tithes. 304Plutarch, “The Comparison of Lucullus with Cimon,” in Plutarch’s Lives [Dryden], p. 626. 305Attridge, p. 196 (cf. n. 134); Buchanan (p. 121) does not actually cite any texts, he simply says “Rabbis did not concur….” 131 On the other hand, there, it is testified, Melchizedek is living. (7:9) One might almost say that, Levi, who received tithes, through Abraham also paid tithes. (7:10) For he was yet in the loins of his great grandfather when Melchizedek met him. The rhetorical structure of the comparative exchange is again evident. On the inferior side are the Levitical priests. They are depicted as those who, at the time of the author, have died. Yet, in the biblical text, one can read of them receiving tithes. In contrast, with regard to Melchizedek, there in that text in Genesis, there is no mention of him having died. With tongue-in-cheek, so to speak, the author quips that it is as though the Levitical priests paid tithes in Abraham. This comparative exchange proves Melchizedek’s status or reputation, his dovxa. Theon lists this among the external qualities in his section on encomium (IX. 18) and also in his section on comparison (X.15). The priesthood of Melchizedek, on this basis, is presented as superior to the Levitical priesthood. The author now turns to show that Jesus has a priesthood superior to the Levitical in view of the fact that he has been appointed as a priest in the order of Melchizedek. 2.3. Tribal Ancestry (7:11–17) (7:11) Eij me;n ou\n teleivwsi" dia; th'" Leuitikh'" iJerwsuvnh" h\n, oJ lao;" ga;r ejp- aujth'" nenomoqevthtai, tiv" e[ti creiva kata; th;n tavxin Melcisevdek e{teron ajnivstasqai iJereva kai; ouj kata; th;n tavxin ÆAarw;n levgesqaiÉ (7:12) metatiqemevnh" ga;r th'" iJerwsuvnh" ejx ajnavgkh" kai; novmou metavqesi" givnetai. (7:13) ejf- o}n ga;r levgetai tau'ta fulh'" eJtevra" metevschken, ajf- h|" oujdei;" prosevschken tw'/ qusiasthrivw/:(7:14) provdhlon ga;r o{ti ejx ÆIouvda ajnatevtalken oJ kuvrio" hJmw'n, eij" h}n fulh;n peri; iJerevwn oujde;n Mwu>sh'" ejlavlhsen. (7:15) kai; perissovteron e[ti katavdhlovn ejstin, eij kata; th;n oJmoiovthta Melcisevdek ajnivstatai iJereu;" e{tero", (7:16) o}" ouj kata; novmon ejntolh'" sarkivnh" gevgonen ajlla; kata; duvnamin zwh'" ajkataluvtou, (7:17) marturei'tai ga;r o{ti Su; 132 iJereu;" eij" to;n aijw'na kata; th;n tavxin Melcisevdek. (7:11) Therefore, if indeed the Levitical priesthood under which the people had received the law was able to bring people to full maturity, what further need would there be for another priest to be raised up according to the order of Melchizedek and not to be named according to the order of Aaron? (7:12) For when there is a transformation of the priesthood, there occurs out of necessity also a transformation of law. (7:13) For he of whom we speak is part of a different tribe from which no one has attended the altar. (7:14) For it is evident that our Lord sprang from Judah about which tribe Moses said nothing regarding a priest. (7:15) And it is consequently even more apparent, if a different priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, (7:16) who has become a priest not according to a law of a fleshly command, but according to the force of an interminable life. (7:17) For it is testified, “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” The comparative exchange in 7:11–17 is delimited based on the switch in subject. Verses 11 and 12 have to do with the Levitical priesthood. The subject changes at 7:13. Since a new comparative exchange begins with 7:18, this one is confined to 7:11–17. The particle mevn is used for emphasis in 7:11 rather than as a marker emphasizing a sentence or clause in distinction to another as in a mevn … dev construction. This construction is not necessary for a comparative exchange, but usually does occur. The topic is ancestry. This, again, is foundational to encomia and to comparison (Theon IX,15–19; X,13–17; Hermogenes VIII, 10). In Aphthonius’ comparison of Achilles and Hector, he compares their ancestry. Kai; progovnou gegonovte" Divo", patravsi paraplhsivoi" ejcrhvsanto. ÆAcillei' me;n ga;r patevre" Aijako;" kai; Phleuv": w|n oJ me;n aujcmw'n ejxairei'tai tou;" ÓEllhna", oJ de; Lapivqa" ajvelw;n, a\qlon th'" ajreth'" qea/' sunoikei'n ejklhrwvsato. ÕEktori de' provgono" uJph'rce Davrdano", qeoi'" to; prwvhn sundiaitwvmeno". path;r de; Privamo", kratw'n povlew" teteicismevnh" uJpo; qew'n: o{son dh; paraplhvsion to; qeoi'" sunoikei'n kai; sundiaita'sqai toi'" kreivttosi, tosou'ton ÓEktowr ÆAcillei' paraplhvsio". (Aphthonius X, p. 99, 8–17) 133 And having been born with Zeus as a progenitor, they had forefathers nearly alike. For the ancestors of Achilles were Aeacus and Peleus, of whom the former freed the Greeks from want and the latter was allotted marriage with a goddess as a prize for his prowess in overcoming the Lapithes. On Hector's side, Dardanus was a forefather who formerly lived with the gods, and his father, Priam, was in command of a city whose walls were built by gods. To the degree that there was similarity in living with the gods and association with superior beings, by that degree is Hector about equal to Achilles.306 Having tracing the genealogy of Achilles and Hector, Aphthonius compares the ancestry of each of them and what is significant about the group of people from whom they descended. Plutarch also covers this topic of ancestry. e[ti d- oiJ mevn, o{te lamprovtaton ei\cen hJ ïRwvmh kai; mevgiston ajxivwma, »kai;¼ kalw'n e[rgwn zh'lon w{sper diadoch;n ajreth'" patrwv/a" kai; progonikh'" hj/scuvnqhsan ejgkatalipei'n: oiJ de; kai; patevrwn tajnantiva proh/rhmevnwn gegonovte", kai; th;n patrivda mocqhra; pravttousan kai; nosou'san paralabovnte", oujdevn ti dia; tau'ta th;n pro;" to; kalo;n ajphvmblunan oJrmhvn. (Ag./Cleom.-Gracchi synk. 1.3–6) Besides, the Gracchi, happening to live when Rome had her greatest repute for honour and virtuous actions, might justly have been ashamed, if they had not also left to the next generation the noble inheritance of the virtues of their ancestors. Whereas the other two had parents of different morals, and though they found their country in a sinking condition, and debauched, yet that did not quench their forward zeal to what was just and honourable.307 This comparative exchange follows the typical pattern. The ancestry is noted only with relationship to moral character, rather than specifically to any actions or achievements. While it would press the matter too much to think that the author of Hebrews is simply discussing the tribal relationships of the priesthood because it is the next topic, it is not unimaginable that his consideration of the common topics brought these relationships to his attention. If the nature of Jesus as priest is signficant; and the concept of first to do something is important along with one’s ancestry; combine that with the text which has 306Nadeau, p. 277. 307Plutarch, “The Comparison of Tiberius and Caius Gracchus with Agis and Cleomenes,” in Lives [Dryden], p. 1019. 134 Melchizedek as representative of an eternal priesthood which would characterize the messianic figure; and this Melchizedek was the first priest described in scripture; and Jesus does not come from the priestly tribe, then it follows that one would draw a comparison of the tribal ancestry of Jesus to that of the Levites. This connection works itself out here in this comparative exchange dealing with ancestry. The author claims the superiority for the priesthood of Jesus because it is based on the priestly order of Melchizedek. It is not a priesthood which has its inception grounded in a “fleshly” commandment of the law. The argument being developed is that the people of God were cut short of reaching their goal of entering the promised land. The author of Hebrews is drawing this parallel to exhort his audience not to fall short of reaching their goal of full maturity, both morally and spiritually. Since the people of God did not achieve this, it is concluded that the fault is with the system which did not help them progress. In contrast to this, Jesus brings about a system which will enable the faithful to come to maturity, teleivwsi". This concept is brought out more fully in the next section. 2.4. Achievements The central topic of encomia is achievements. The Rhetoric to Alexander (1441b,4–13) places the discussion of achievements as the main topic for praise regarding a person’s adulthood. Usually this type of comparison in Plutarch has to do with the achievements in government, in the enactment of laws, in building programs, in benefactions to the people, innovations in society, victory in foreign affairs, advancement in politics, and those actions which are memorable and long-lasting. The author of Hebrews, after having introduced Jesus into this comparative section — though not by name until verse 22—, goes on to formulate three comparative exchanges which set forth his achievements. These are three ways in which Jesus is found to be superior in His role as priest to the Levitical priests. The first two achievements are based 135 on the praiseworthiness of having been the only one to do something (Theon, On Encomium IX, 35–38). 2.4.1. Introduction of Better Hope (7:18–19) (7:18) ajqevthsi" me;n ga;r givnetai proagouvsh" ejntolh'" dia; to; aujth'" ajsqene;" kai; ajnwfelev", (7:19) oujde;n ga;r ejteleivwsen oJ novmo", ejpeisagwgh; de; kreivttono" ejlpivdo", di- h|" ejggivzomen tw'/ qew'/. (7:18) For, on the one hand, there is a repeal of a preceding commandment because of the weakness and ineffectiveness of it. (7:19) For the law did not bring anyone to the intended goal. On the other hand, there is a subsequent better hope, through which we do approach close to God. In this comparative exchange, the author once again begins to use the mevn … dev construction. We also find the signficant comparative term kreivttwn. The achievement which sets Jesus apart is that He has introduced a “better hope.” Our reading of the text here continues to keep in mind the textual argument the author has been developing. It is the rhetorical structure that helps to define the argument. Traditionally, 7:18 is understood to be, as Attridge puts it, “not simply an amendment of the Law, but its definitive ‘abrogation.’308 The “abrogation” is of a particular commandment, not the Law as a totality. How could this be when the author of Hebrews himself says, using the same word as in 7:18, “Anyone who abrogates (ajqethvsa") the Law of Moses without mercy will be put to death on the basis of two or three witnesses (10:28)?” The difficulty with the Law, the ceremonial system involving the Levitical priesthood, is that it fails to bring people309 to the intended goal of full maturity. The failure in chapter three and four was the failure of the people of God to enter God’s rest. The author says 308Attridge, p. 203. 309The neuter oujden may also apply to people. “The neuter forms are often used of persons” (Smyth, ¶2736). Ellingworth takes it as “nothing” but concedes “no one” is grammatically allowable, “Chrysostom understood ‘nothing’ as ‘no one,’ and the author’s main concern is clearly with people (p. 381).” 136 nothing about the failure of the message, it was the disobedience of the people that prevented them from making progress. Likewise here, the people are not brought to the level of fulfillment. Its “weakness” and “ineffectiveness” are connected to its fleshly and temporal nature. The other side of the comparative exchange maintains the balance. What is inferior in the one is shown to be superior in the other. The converse of oujde;n ga;r ejteleivwsen oJ novmo" is that there is a “better hope.” This refers to the effective- ness of Jesus as high priest to bring a person near to God. The comparison is meant to encourage the audience to endure their present suffering and remain faithful. Jesus will be able to help them to “make it home,” so to speak. 2.4.2. Guarantee of Better Covenant (7:20–22) (7:20) Kai; kaq- o{son ouj cwri;" oJrkwmosiva", oiJ me;n ga;r cwri;" oJrkwmosiva" eijsi;n iJerei'" gegonovte", (7:21) oJ de; meta; oJrkwmosiva" dia; tou' levgonto" pro;" aujtovn, ÒWmosen kuvrio", kai; ouj metamelhqhvsetai, Su; iJereu;" eij" to;n aijw'na, (7:22) kata; tosou'to »kai;¼ kreivttono" diaqhvkh" gevgonen e[gguo" ÆIhsou'". (7:20) And what about the oath! For the former, on the one hand, are become priests without an oath. (7:21) The latter, on the other hand, became a priest with an oath because of what was said to Him, “The Lord has sworn and will not equivocate, ‘You are a priest forever.’” (7:22) In this way Jesus has become the pledge of a better covenant. The litotes (double negative) construction forcefully introduces the subject of the oath. As in Plutarch’s comparisons, the pronominal article appears in conjunction with the mevn … dev construction (here translated, “the former … the latter”). On the basis of the oath stated in Ps 110:4, the author concludes that Jesus’ priesthood is superior. The Levitical priests did not have this quality. It is this “oath” that ensures that Jesus’ priesthood is eternal. As 137 such He is a pledge of a better agreement. It is the achievement of having been the only one to accomplish a thing. 2.4.3. Long Lasting & For Others (7:23–25) (7:23) kai; oiJ me;n pleivonev" eijsin gegonovte" iJerei'" dia; to; qanavtw/ kwluvesqai paramevnein: (7:24) oJ de; dia; to; mevnein aujto;n eij" to;n aijw'na ajparavbaton e[cei th;n iJerwsuvnhn:(7:25) o{qen kai; swv/zein eij" to; pantele;" duvnatai tou;" prosercomevnou" di- aujtou' tw'/ qew'/, pavntote zw'n eij" to; ejntugcavnein uJpe;r aujtw'n. (7:23) And the priests, on the one hand, are become many on account of being prevented from continuing due to death. (7:24) On the other hand, He has an indissoluble priesthood because it remains “forever.” (7:25) Wherefore, He is also able to preserve to the fullest degree those who approach God through Him, always living in order to intercede for them. In the final comparative exchange of this section, the author concludes with the topic of Jesus’ achievement of holding the office of priest for all time. In contrast to the Levitical priests who continue to die off, Jesus has done what others could not do. As a priest in perpetuity He is able to bring those who approach God through Him to the state of full maturity. Those who approach God through Jesus will not fall, but be safely brought to the consummation of their spiritual existence. As a priest who lives foever, Jesus is able to perform the priestly function of intercession on their behalf. An achievement which is done for the sake of others is highly regarded. In this comparison, Jesus is shown to be superior by virtue of an achievement which is long-lasting, which others are unable to do, and which was performed for the benefit of others. The paraenesis which climaxes this synkrisis makes the judgment that the superior priest is the one who has offered a one time sacrifice, who is not weak in susceptibility to death, and who, on the basis of God’s oath, will remain as priest forever. The Son who has experienced the trials of life and remained faithful to God is the one who has been 138 exalted to heaven where He serves as High Priest. The crucial words for the audience is “we have such a High Priest” (8:1). It is true that synkrisis is often, as Aphthonius described it, an encomium with a denunciation (X, 97.22), but the goal of a positive synkrisis is to persuade the audience to accept the judgment of who or what is superior and to emulate those characteristics. The methodology which stresses the expositional sections of Hebrews also tends to emphasize the negative aspect of the comparison. Comparisons are to be made with items which are considered to be equal. Aphthonius remarks that it is ridiculous to compare an obviously inferior subject to one which is clearly superior. Comparisons are drawn between subjects concerning which there is difficulty assessing which is superior. The author tells his audience what the main point is in the recapitulation “we have such a high priest.” It is a logical fallacy to assume the converse. Not only has the structure of this section in Hebrews been proven to be that of the genre synkrisis, it has additionally been shown that the author of Hebrews here follows to a great degree the common topics of epideictic oratory. This approach has provided a basis for a better understanding of the text. It is an approach that, as much as possible, reconstructs the patterns of argumentation as they existed in the first century. We have only been able to touch upon the many and great implications this reading of the text can have for our overall interpretation of the theology of Hebrews. 139 CONCLUSION Hebrews 7 conforms to the genre of synkrisis in its vocabulary, structure and argument. In vocabulary, by the use of the mevn … dev construction, the encomiastic topics, comparative statements, and even comparative terminology in 7:3. In structure, by following the pattern of the topics and in the comparative exchanges. In argument, by alternating between the two subjects in order to show the superiority of Christ as a basis for exhortation. It has been shown that Hebrews not only contains comparison, as it was taught and practised in Greco-Roman rhetoric, but that the genre is a structuralizing principle in combination with exhortation. This synkresis/paraenesis alternation provides a greater understanding of the text and helps to solve some of the interpretive puzzles of Hebrews. Explaining the rhetorical form of Hebrews is significant in itself. Seeing how the form functions is even more important. Its purpose it to praise one subject by showing how it is equal to or better than another subject which is held to be a great model. As in encomiastic literature in general, there is a secondary goal of emulation and moral persuasion. By applying this to Hebrews, we have seen that the main thrust of the author is to persuade his audience to progress in moral conduct and character by bringing to their attention the great models, both positive and negative, of their scripture. One of the implications of this study is to further place Hebrews within the Hellenistic world as opposed to the rabbinic tradition of formative Judaism. I have stressed that the function of comparison supports the reading of Hebrews which sees the Jewish scriptures as models for exhortation rather than as a target for dogmatic argumentation. It is interesting to consider whether a document which has been dated late in the first century due, in part, to its anti-judaic tendency may be dated earlier by those who follow such a chronological criterion. If the reader accepts that there is no reason to appeal to midrash and rabbinic modes of argument, then may it be concluded that there is more of a reason to reject Palestine as the provenance in favor of a place such as Alexandria. There 140 seems to be no real reference to Second Temple Judaism, but only a discussion of the ancient tabernacle and sacrifical system. Is this due to a geographical distance, a time much after the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E ., or simply a disinterest in the other responses to Jewish scripture. In addition, it could be conjectured that the social setting of this nascent Christian community was more scholastic than liturgical. The implications of this study for the cultural milieu, chronology, provenance, and social setting of Hebrews require further research. This analysis of the text of Hebrews has had as its goal that which Robert Scholes has described as the goal which any interpreter of literature has to have, “the recovery of the codes (linguistic, generic, ideological) that constituted the situations of the texts they have chosen to interpret.310 Scholes goes on to say that “We care about texts for many reasons, not the least of which is that they bring us news that alters our way of interpreting things. … Textual power is ultimately power to change the world.”311 It is hoped that we have changed some minds, and that, in some way, it will have helped change the world. 310Robert Scholes, Textual Power, p. 165. 311Ibid. 141 APPENDIX ONE: THEON'S “ PERI SUGKRISEWS " Chapter X Peri; Sugkrivsew" 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Suvgkrisiv" ejsti lovgo" to; bevltion h] to; cei'ron paristav". Givnontai de; sugkrivsei" proswvpwn te kai; pragmavtwn, kai; proswvpwn me;n: oi|on, Ai[anto", ÆOdussevw": pragmavtwn de;: oi|on, sofiva" te kai; ajndreiva". ajll- ejpeidh; kai; tw'n proswvpwn qavteron prokrivnomen eij" ta;" pravxei" ajpoblevponte", kai; ei[ ti a[llo peri; aujtw'n ejstin ajgaqovn, miva mevqodo" a]n ei[h peri; ajmfoi'n. Prw'ton de; diwrivsqw, o{ti aiJ sugkrivsei" givnontai ouj tw'n megavlhn pro;" a[llhla diafora;n ejcovntwn: geloi'o" ga;r oJ ajporw'n, povteron ajndreiovtero" ÆAcilleu;" h] Qersivth", ajll- uJpe;r tw'n oJmoivwn, kai; peri; w|n ajmfisbhtou'men, povteron dei' proqevsqai, dia; to; mhdemivan oJra'n / tou' eJtevrou pro;" to; e{teron uJperochvn. O { tan me;n ou\n provswpa sugkrivnwmen, prw'ton me;n ajntiparabalou'men th;n eujgevneian kai; th;n paideivan kai; th;n eujteknivan kai; ta;" ajrca;" kai; th;n dovxan kai; th;n tou' swvmato" diavqesin, kai; ei[ ti a[llo periv te to; sw'ma kai; e[xwqen ajgaqo;n ejn toi'" Peri; E j gkwmivwn proeivpomen. Meta; de; tau'ta ta;" pravxei" sugkrinou'men prokrivnonte" ta;" kallivou" kai; ta;" ajgaqw'n pleiovnwn kai; meizovnwn aijtiva", kai; ta;" bebaiotevra" kai; ta;" polucroniwtevra", kai; ta;" ejn kairw'/ ma'llon pepragmevna", kai; w|n mh; pracqeisw'n megavlh blavbh sumbaivnei, kai; ta;" ejk proairevsew" ma'llon tw'n di- ajnavgkhn h] tuvchn, kai; a}" ojlivgoi e[praxan ma'llon h] a}" polloiv: ta; ga;r koina; kai; dhmwvdh ouj pavnu ejpainetav: kai; a}" meta; povnou ejpravxamen ma'llon h] rJad / ivw", kai; a}" eijrgasavmeqa meta; th;n hJlikivan kai; th;n duvnamin ma'llon h] ta;" o{te dunatovn ejsti. Ta;" de; diabolav", wJ" e[famen ejn tw'/ peri; ejgkwmivwn, h] ouj dei' levgein h] wJ" oi|on v te tavcista, ta;" de; tou' ejnantivou proswvpou diasuvrein ma'llon kai; cleuavzein proshvkei: touvtw/ ga;r dioivsei suvgkrisi" th'" uJpoqevsew". ejn me;n ga;r th'/ uJpoqevsei pro;" tw'/ ta; oijkei'a levgein katorqwvmata kai; ei[ ti pevpraktai toi'" ajntidivkoi" aJmavrthma, ejpavxomen, hJ de; suvgkrisi" movnhn aJplw'" tw'n katorqwmavtwn th;n uJperoch;n zhtei'n ejpaggevlletai. O { tan de; pravgmata sugkrivnwmen, geloi'on me;n i[sw" ejntau'qa dovxei suggevneian h[ ti toiou'ton zhtei'n, oujde;n de; kwluvei kata; ajnalogivan toi'" toiouvtoi" ejpiskopei'n, oi|on h] tou;" euJreta;" aujtw'n h] th;n fuvsin h] th;n cwvran, ejn ai|" pevfuken ei\nai, kaqa; ei[ ti" faivh th;n uJgeivan ÆApovllwno" ei\nai qugatevra, ejpeidh; ijatro;" oJ qeov", h] to; mevli ejx oujranou', diovti dokei' toi'" polloi'" ejk drovsou th;n uJpovstasin e[cein, h] nai; ma; Div- ajll- ejk th'" ajrivsth" povlew", ejpeidh; pevfuke to; kavlliston mevli ejn th'/ ÆAttikh'/ givnesqai, kai; o{sa toiau'ta. eJxh'" de; lektevon kai; ta;" di- eJkatevrwn tw'n paraballomevnwn sumbainouvsa" wjfeleiva". Ta;" me;n ou\n tw'n beltiovnwn sugkrivsei" ejk tauvth" poihsovmeqa: ejk de; tw'n ejnantivwn, ejpeida;n zhtw'men duoi'n o[ntwn feuktw'n to; cei'ron ajneurei'n, oi|on ajfrosuvnh" kai; ajlghdovno". AiJ me;n ou\n eJno;" pro;" e{n ti sugkrivsei" ou{tw" a]n meqodeuvointo, ta;" de; pleiovnwn tinw'n pro;" pleivw kata; duvo trovpou" eijwq v amen sugkrivnein. ei|" me;n gavr ejsti trovpo", o{tan tw'n 142 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 sugkrinomevnwn labovnte" ta; ajkrovtata pro;" a[llhla parabavllwmen, kata; de; th;n touvtwn suvgkrisin kai; to; suvmpan gevno" pro;" pa'n gevno" ajxioi'men e[cein, oi|on eij bouloivmeqa to; tw'n ajrrevnwn gevno" pro;" to; tw'n qhleiw'n sugkri'nai, oJpovteron aujtw'n ejstin ajndreiovteron, ajxioi'men to;n ajndreiovtaton a[ndra pro;" th;n ajndreiotavthn gunai'ka sugkrivnonte", oJpovteron a]n euJrivskwmen kreivttona, ou{tw kai; to; o{lon aujtou' gevno" tou' eJtevrou krei'tton ajpofaivnein. Eij me;n dh; bouloivmeqa prokrivnein to; tw'n ajrrevnwn gevno" tou' qhvleo", ou{tw poihvsomen: uJpoqhsovmeqa ga;r Qemistokleva kreivttona ei\nai tou' tw'n ajrrevnwn gevnou" kata; ajndreivan, ÆArtemisivan de; tou' qhvleo", oujkou'n eij ajndreiovtero" Qemistoklh'" ÆArtemisiva", kai; to; tw'n ajrrevnwn gevno" tou' tw'n qhleiw'n ajndreiovteron. Eij de; to; qh'lu gevno" tou' a[rreno" prokrivnein ejqevloimen, uJpoqhsovmeqa Tovmurin me;n ei\nai ajndreiotavthn gunaikw'n, Ku'ron de; tw'n ajndrw'n, oujkou'n eij Tovmuri" ajndreiotevra Kuvrou, kai; to; tw'n qhleiw'n gevno" ajndreiovteron tou' tw'n ajrrevnwn. 2) Deuvtero" de; trovpo" ejstivn, o{tan mh; mivan h] duvo tw'n ejxocwtavtwn toi'" ejxocwtavtoi" parabavllwmen, ajll- ejkei'no to; gevno" prokrivnwmen, ejn w|/ pleivou" eijsi;n oiJ eujdovkimoi, oi|on eij pleivou" eijsi;n a[rrene" ajndrei'oi h[per aiJ gunai'ke", kai; to; gevno" tw'n ajrrevnwn tou' tw'n gunaikw'n ajndreiovteron. ouj ga;r eij Tovmuri" hJ Massagevti", h] Sparevqra hJ ÆAmovrgou tou' Sakw'n basilevw" gunh; kreivttwn ejsti; Kuvrou, h] kai; nai; ma; Diva Semivrami" Zwroavstrou tou' Baktrivou, h[dh sugcwrhtevon kai; to; qh'lu tou' a[rreno" ei\nai ajndreiovteron, mia'" me;n h] duvo gunaikw'n ajndreiotavtwn oujsw'n, ajrrevnwn de; pampovllwn. E [ sti de; oJ trovpo" tw'n lovgwn dittov": h] ga;r uJpe;r eJkavstou tw'n sugkrinomevnwn ijdiva/ tina; lovgon diexeleusovmeqa, h] e{na parajmfoi'n qatevrou prokrivnonte", kaqavper kai; Xenofw'n ejn tw'/ Sumposivw/ to;n th'" yuch'" e[rwta tw'/ tou' swvmato" ajntiparabavllwn prokrivnei. On Comparison A comparison is a speech which shows what is better or what is worse. There are comparisons of characters and subjects: of characters: for example, Ajax, Odysseus; of subjects: for example, wisdom and courage. But since we prefer one of the characters over another in view of their actions, as well as whatever else about them is good, there can be one method for both. First, let it be established that comparisons are made not with matters that differ greatly from one another (for the person who does not know whether Achilles or Thersistes was more courageous is ridiculous), but with matters that are similar and concerning which we disagree about which of the two we must prefer because we see no superiority of one over the other. So then, when we compare characters, we will first set side by side their noble birth, their education, their children, their public offices, their reputation, their bodily health, as well as whatever else I said earlier, in the chapter “On Encomia,” about bodily good qualities and external good qualities. After these items, we will compare their actions by choosing those which are more noble and the reasons for the numerous and greater blessings, those actions that are more reliable, those that are more enduring, those that were done at the proper time, those from which great harm results when they have not been done, those that were done with a motive rather than those done because of compulsion or chance, those which few have done rather than those that many have done (for the common and hackneyed are not at all praiseworthy), those we have done with effort rather than easily, and those we have 143 performed that were beyond our age and ability rather than those which we performed when it was possible. With regard to false accusations, which I discussed in the chapter “On Encomia,” either we must not mention them at all or, we must do so as briefly as possible. But the accusations against the contrasting character it is especially fitting to disparage and ridicule, for a comparison will differ from the hypothesis in this way: In the hypothesis, in addition to rehearsing the appropriate accomplishments, we will also amplify if some wrong-doing has been committed by the opponents; whereas the comparison professes merely to investigate only the superiority of the appropriate accomplishments. When we compare subjects, it will perhaps seem ridiculous to investigate here “family connections” or some such thing, but nothing prevents us from taking a look at such things by way of analogy. For example, the originator of the subjects, or their elementary substance, or the region in which they belong; as if someone should say that health is a daughter of Apollo, since the god is a healer, or that honey is divine because many think that it has its substance from dew, or that “Yes, by Zeus, but it comes from the best city,” since naturally the finest honey is produced in Attica, and all such matters. And next, one should also discuss the benefits that result from each of the two subjects that are set side by side. So then, we will make comparisons of what is better from these considerations; but from their opposites, when we seek to expose the worse of two matters which are to be avoided; for example, intemperance and pain. So then, comparisons of one item with another item can be handled in this way. But comparisons of several items with several other items we usually make in two ways: 1) One way is when we take the extreme cases of what is being compared and set them side by side with one another, and in our comparison of these extremes we can expect also to have the whole class set side by side with another whole class. For example, if we wish to compare the class of males with that of females to determine which of them is more courageous, we can, by comparing the most courageous man with the most courageous woman to determine which of them is better, expect thusly also to state that the whole class of one is better than that of the other. If, then, we wish to prefer the male sex to the female sex, we will do the following: we will propse that Themistocles is better than the class of males in courage and that Artemesia is better than the class of females. Surely then if Themistocles is more courageous than Artemesia, the class of males is also more courageous than the class of females. If, on the other hand, we should wish to prefer the feminine class to the masculine, we will propose that Tomyris is the most courageous of women and that Cyrus the most courageous of men. Surely then if Tomyris is more courageous than Cyrus, the class of females is also more courageous than the class of males. 2) A second way is when we set not one or two of the most prominent women side by side with the most prominent men, but when we prefer that class in which the distinguihsed people are more numerous. For example, if courageous males are more numerous than courageous women, then the class of males also is more courageous than the class of women. For if Tomyris of Massegetae or Sparetha, the wife of Amorges, King of Sarcae, is better than Cyrus, or even if, yes, by Zeus, Semiramis is better than Zoroaster the Bactrian, one does not also have to agree immediately that the female is more courageous than the male since one or two women are most courageous, when there are very many most courageous males. 144 There is the double procedure for speeches: either we run through in detail a separate speech on behalf of each of the items being compared or we will run through a single speech about both, preferring one or the other item, just as Xenophon, in his Symposium, [VIII.12], in setting side by side, love of the soul and love of the body prefers the former. 145 APPENDIX TWO: HERMOGENES' “ PERI SUGKRISEWS " Peri; sugkrivsew". 1 ïH suvgkrisi" pareivlhptai me;n kai; ejn tovpw/ koinw'/ kata; suvgkrisin hJmw'n aujxovntwn ta; ajdikhvmata, pareivlhptai de; kai; ejn ejgkwmivw/ kata; suvgkrisin hJmw'n aujxovntwn ta; crhstav, pareivlhptai de; kai; ejn yovgw/ th;n aujth;n 5 parecomevnh duvnamin. ejpei; de; ouj tw'n fauvlwn tine;" kai; aujth;n kaq- auJth;n ejpoivhsan guvmnasma, mikro;n peri; aujth'" lektevon. Proveisi toivnun kata; tou;" ejgkwmiastikou;" tovpou": sugkrivnomen ga;r kai; povlin povlei, ajf- w|n oiJ a[ndre", 10 kai; gevno" gevnei kai; trofh;n trofh'/ kai; ejpithdeuvmata kai; pravxei" kai; ta; ejkto;" kai; trovpou" qanavtwn kai; ta; met- ejkei'na. ïOmoivw" de; eij kai; futa; sugkrivnoi", ajntexetavsei" tou;" dovnta" qeouv", tou;" tovpou", ejn oi|" fuvetai, to; h{meron, th;n creivan tw'n karpw'n kai; ta; eJxh'". 15 ïOmoivw" de; eij kai; pravgmata sugkrivnoi", ejrei'" tou;" prwvtou" aJyamevnou" tw'n pragmavtwn kai; tou;" metiovnta" paraqhvsei" ajllhvloi", poiovthta yuch'", poiovthta swvmato". taujto;n dev soi kai; peri; pavntwn keivsqw qewvrhma. ÆEnivote me;n ou\n kata; to; i[son proavgomen ta;" sug20 krivsei", i[sa deiknuvnte", a} parabavllomen, h] dia; pavntwn h] dia; pleiovnwn: ejnivote de; qavteron protivqemen, ejgkwmiavzonte" kajkei'no, ou| tou'to protivqemen: ejnivote de; to; me;n yevgomen o{lw", to; de; ejpainou'men, oi|on eij levgoi" suvgkrisin dikaiosuvnh" kai; plouvtou. givnetai de; kai; 25 pro;" to; bevltion suvgkrisi", e[nqa ajgw;n to;n ejlavttona i[son tw'/ kreivttoni dei'xai, oi|on eij suvgkrisin levgoi" ïHraklevou" kai; ÆOdussevw". ajpaitei' de; to; toiou'to bivaion rJht v ora kai; deinovthta, dei'tai de; kai; gorgovthto" hJ ejrgasiva pantacou' dia; to; dei'n taceiva" poiei'sqai ta;" 30 metabavsei". Comparison has been included both under commonplace as a means of our amplifying misdeeds, and also under encomium as a means of amplifying good deeds, and finally has been included as having the same force in censure. But since some of no small reputation have made it an exercise by itself, we must speak of it briefly. It proceeds, then, by the encomiastic topics; for we compare city with city as to the men who came from them, race with race, nurture with nurture, pursuits, affairs, external 146 relations, and the manner of death and what follows. Likewise if you compare plants, you will set over against one another the gods who give them, the places in which they grow, the cultivation, the use of their fruits, etc. Likewise also if you compare things done, you will tell who first undertood them, and will compare with one another those who pursued them as to qualities of soul and body. Let the same principle be accepted for all. Now sometimes we draw our comparisons by equality, showing the things which we compare as equal either in all respects or in several; sometimes we put the one ahead, praising also the other to which we prefer it; sometimes we blame the one utterly and praise the other, as in a comparison of justice and wealth. There is even comparison with the better, where the task is to show the less equal to the greater, as in a comparison of Heracles with Odysseus. But such comparison demands a powerful orator and a vivid style; and the working out always needs vivacity because of the need of making the transitions swift. 147 APPENDIX THREE: APHTHONIUS’ “ PERI SUGKRISEWS " Page 97 16 20 O { ro" sugkrivsew" Suvgrisiv" ejsti lovgo" ajntexetastiko;", ejk paraqevsew" sunavgwn tw'/ paraballomevnw/ to; mei'zon h] to; i[son. Dei' de; sugkrivnonta" h] kala; paraqei'nai crhstoi'", h] fau'la fauvloi", h] crhsta; ponhroi'", h] mikra' paraqei'nai toi'" meivzosi: kai; o{lw" hJ suvgkrisi" diplou'n ejgkwvmiovn ejstin, h] yovgo" ejx ejgkwmivou sugkeivmeno", kai; pa'" me;n Page 98 1 5 10 15 tovpo" sugkrivsew" deino;" kaqavpax kaqevsthke, mavlista de; oJ ta; mikra; parabavllwn toi'" meivzosi: tosau'ta de; sugkrivnein proshvkei, o{sa kai; yevgein kai; ejgkwmiavzein: provswpav te kai; pravgmata, kairouv" te kai; tovpou", a[loga zw'a, kai; pro;" touvtoi" futav. Ouj dei' de; sugkrivnonta" o{lon o{lw/ parabavllein (u{ption ga;r tou'to kai; oujk ajgwnistiko;n), ajlla; kefalaivw/ kefavlaion: ajgwnistiko;n ga;r tou'tov ge: suvgkrisi" de; ejn aujtw'/ oujk e[stin, ejpeivper o{lon ejsti; to; proguvmnasma suvgkrisi". Suvgkrisi" Acillevw" kaij ÓEktoro" A j reth;n ajreth'/ sugkri'nai zhtw'n, ajntexetavzw to;n Phlevw" pro;" ÓEktora: kaq- auJta;" me;n ga;r aiJ ajretai; tivmiai, paraballovmenai de; zhlwtovterai kaqesthvkasin. Gegovnasi toivnun a[mfw gh'" ouj mia'", ejpainoumevnh" de; oJmoivw" eJkavtero". oJ me;n ga;r Fqiva", o{qen oJ th'" ïEllavdo" proh'lqen ejpwvnumo". oJ de; Troiva", h|" oijkistai; Page 99 qew'n oiJ prw'toi gegovnasin: o{son dh; to; gegenh'sqai cwvra" oJmoia" oujx h|tton eij" e[painon, tosou'ton ÓEktwr 5 ÆAcillevw" oujk ajpoleivpetai. Kai; gegonovte" gh'" ejpainoumevnh" ajmfovteroi, a[mfw th;n i[shn e[scon suggevneian: eJkavtero" gaJr proh'lqe Diov": Phlevw" me;n ga;r ÆAcilleu;", Aijakou' de; Phleu;", kai; Dio;" Aijakov". ÓEktwr te oJmoivw" Priavmou kai; Laomevdonto", Laomevdwn de; proh'lqe Dardavnou, Davrdano" de; Dio;" ejgegevnhto pai'". Kai; progov- 10 15 nou gegonovte" Divo", patravsi paraplhsivoi" ejcrhvsanto. ÆAcillei' me;n ga;r patevre" Aijako;" kai; Phleuv": w|n oJ me;n aujcmw'n ejxairei'tai tou;" ÓEllhna", oJ de; Lapivqa" ajvelw;n, a\qlon th'" ajreth'" qea/' sunoikei'n ejklhrwvsato. ÕEktori de' provgono" uJph'rce Davrdano", qeoi'" to; prwvhn sundiaitwvmeno". path;r de; Privamo", kra tw'n povlew" teteicismevnh" uJpo; qew'n: o{son dh; paraplhvsion to; qeoi'" sunoikei'n kai; sundiaita'sqai toi'" kreivttosi, tosou'ton ÓEktowr ÆAcillei' paraplhvsio". Kai; gego- 148 Page 100 novte" ejk toiw'nde progovnwn a[mfw pro;" ajndreivan ejtravghsan: oJ mevn ga;r uJpo; Ceivrwni trevfetai, tw/' de; Priva- mos katevsth trofeu;", fuvsei th'" ajreth'" eijsfevrwn didavgmata: 5 to; de; trafh'nai pro;" ajreth;n i[son o]n ejp- ajm- fotevroin, i[shn aujtoi'" ejpifevrei th;n eu[kleian. ÆEpei; de; eij" a[ndra" a[mfw proh'lqon, ejf- eJno;" polevmou th;n ijscu;n oJmoivan ejkevkthnto: prw'ton me;n ga;r ÓEktwr hJgei'to tw'n Trwvwn, kai; periw;n Troiva" kaqivstato provbolo": e[peita qeoi'" summacouvmeno" e[mene, kai; kei'sqai pesw;n par- 10 15 20 evsce th;n Troivan. ÆAcilleu;" de; th'" me;n ïEllavdo" ejn toi'" o]ploi" hJgei'to, kai; pavnta" fobw'n kathgwnivzeto Trw'a", kai; sunagwnizomevnhn ei\ce th;n ÆAqhna'n, kai; pesw;n tou' kratei'n ajfh/rei'to tou;" ÆAcaiouv": kai; oJ me;n hJtthqei;" ajnh/rei'to dia; th'" ÆAqhna'": oJ de; pro;" ÆApovllwno" ballovmeno" e[pipte: Kai; gegonovte" a[mfw para; qew'n, ejk qew'n ajnh/revqhsan: o{qen ga;r to; gevno", kai; to; tou' bivou tevlo" eijlhvfasin: o{son dh; paraplhvsion bivo" kai; qavnato", tosou'ton ÓEktwr ÒAxillei' paraplhvsio". ÇHn e{tera pleivona levgein peri; th'" ajmfoi'n ajreth'", eij mh; th;n dovxan a[mfw paraplhsivan ei\con tw'n e[rgwn. X. Concerning a Comparison A comparison is a comparative speech inferring through juxtaposition that a thing is greater than its rival. Further, it is necessary for those who make comparisons either to place the good beside the excellent, or the mean beside the base, or the upright beside the wicked, or the small beside the greater. In short, the comparison is a two-fold encomium, or a vituperation combined with an encomium; and all kinds of comparison are very effective, but especailly that which compares the small with the greater. The same things are worthy objects for comparison as are fit for vituperation and praise: persons and things, times and places, dumb animals and, in addition, plants. It is not fitting that those who make comparisons should set one "whole" beside another, for this is dull and unimpressive, but they should rather set one point beside another, for this is indeed impressive. Since division into points is the mode of encomium, it is not that of comparison, and there is no [topic of] comparison in the [exercise], because this entire exercise is a comparison. Seeking to compare virtue with virtue, I am going to measure the son of Peleus by the standard of Hector. For the virtues are to be honored in themselves; compared, they become even more worthy of imitation. 149 Accordingly, both were born of not one land, but each alike sprang from one that is famous. One was of Phthia, whence came the name of Greece itself. The other was of Troy, whose builders were the first of the gods. To the degree that having been born in similar lands is not an inferiority in regard to commendation, by that degree Hector is not excelled by Achilles. And being born, the one as well as the other, of a praiseworthy land, both belonged to families of equal stature. For each was descended from Zeus. Achilles was the son of Peleus, Peleus of Aeacus, and Aeacus of Zeus; Hector, likewise, came from Priam and Laomedon, Laomedon from Dardanus, and Dardanus was a son of Zeus. And having been born with Zeus as a progenitor, they had forefathers nearly alike. For the ancestors of Achilles were Aeacus and Peleus, of whom the former freed the Greeks from want and the latter was allotted marriage with a goddess as a prize for his prowess in overcoming the Lapithes. On hector's side, Dardanus was a forefather who formerly lived with the gods, and his father, Priam, was in command of a city whose walls were built by gods. To the degree that there was similarity in living with the gods and association with superior beings, by that degree is Hector about equal to Achilles. And descended from such ancestors, both grew to manhood. the one was reared by Chron, while Priam was the tutor of the other by contributing lessons inv virtue through his natural relationship. Just as an education in virtue is equal in both instances, so to them both does it bring equal fame. When both arrived at manhood, they gained similar stature out of a single struggle. For, in the first place, Hector led the Trojans and he was the protector of Troy as long as he survived. He remained in alliance with gods during that time and, when he fell, he left Tory lying vulnerable. Achilles, on the other hand, was the leader of Greece in arms; by terrifying all, he was prevailing against the Trojans and he had the help of Athena in the contest but, when he fell, he deprived the Achaeans of gaining the upper hand. Overcome through Athena, the former [Hector] was destroyed; the latter [Achilles] fell, struck down at the hands of Apollo. And both, having sprung from gods, were taken off by gods; whence they drew their beginning, they also derived the end of their lives. To the degree that there was similarity in life and in death, by that degree is Hector on a par with Achilles. It would be possible to say many other things on the virtue of both, except that [to sum it all up] both won a similar glory through their deeds. 150 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Aristotle. Rhetorica ad Alexandrum. Translated by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937. Cicero. Rhetorica ad Herennium. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937. Cicero. De Oratore. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1942. Cicero. De Inventione and Topica. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1949. Dionysius of Halicarnassus. De Demosthenis dictione. Edited by H. Usener & L. Radermacher. Dionysii Halicarnasei quae exstant. Leipzig: Teubner, 1899 (repr. Stuttgart: 1965). Dionysius of Halicarnassus. De Isocrate. Edited by H. Usener & L. Radermacher. Dionysii Halicarnasei quae exstant. Leipzig: Teubner, 1899 (repr. Stuttgart: 1965). Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Ars rhetorica. Edited by H. Usener & L. Radermacher. Dionysii Halicarnasei quae exstant. Leipzig: Teubner, 1929 (repr. Stuttgart: 1965). Griffiths, J. Gwyn. Plutarch’s “De Iside et Osiride”. University of Wales Press, 1970. Hermogenes. “Progymnasmata.” Hermogenis Opera. Ed. H. Rabe. Leipzig: Teubner, 1913 (Reprint, Stuttgart: 1969). 1-27. Hubbell, Harry M. The Rhetorica of Philodemus. in Transactions of The Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences. New Haven: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1920. Libanius. Progymnasmata. Edited by R. Foerster. Libanii opera. Leipzig: Teubner, 1915. Nestle, Eberhard et al., ed. Novum Testamentum Graece. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979. Quintilian. Institutio Oratia. 4 vols. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1921. Sudhaus, Siegfried. Philodemi Volumina Rhetorica. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1892, 1896. Suetonius. De Grammaticis. Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann; New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1920. Suetonius. De Rhetoribus. Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann; New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1920. Theon, Aelius. “Progymnasmata.” Rhetores Graeci. Ed. L. Spengel. Leipzig: Teubner, 1854 (repr. Frankfurt am Main: Minerva, 1966). 2: 59-130. 151 Wilson, N. G., and D. A. Russell. Menander Rhetor. Oxford: Oxford University, 1979. Commentaries Attridge, Harold W. “Hebrews.” Harper's Bible Commentary. Ed. James L. Mays. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. 1259-1271. ———. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Edited by Helmut Koester. in Hermeneia — A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989. Bisping, A. Erklärung des Briefes an die Hebräer. Münster: 1854. Bleek, Friedrich. Der Brief an die Hebräer. Berlin: Ferdinand Dümmler, 1840. Bonsirven, Joseph. Épître aux Hébreux: Introduction, traduction et commentaire. Verbum Salutis; Paris: Beauchesne, 1943. Braun, Herbert. An die Hebräer. Edited by Hans Lietzmann. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1984. Bruce, A. B. The Epistle to the Hebrews: The First Apology for Christianity.Edinburgh, 1899. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Edited by F. F. Bruce. In The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964. Buchanan, George Wesley. To the Hebrews: Translation, Comment and Conclusions. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972. Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993. Haering, T. Der Brief an die Hebräer. Stuttgart: 1925. Héring, Jean. L’Épître aux Hébreux. Commentaire du Nouveau Testament. Paris & Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1955. Hughes, Philip E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984. Kittredge, Cynthia Briggs. “Hebrews.” in A Feminist Commentary. Ed. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. 2 vols. Searching the Scriptures. New York: Crossroad, 1994. 2: 428–452. Kuss, Otto. Der Brief an die Hebräer. Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1966. 152 Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Hebräer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Moffatt, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1924. Montefiore, Hugh. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Reese, James M. “Wisdom of Solomon.” Harper's Bible Commentary. Ed. James L. Mays. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. 820-35. Seeberg, Alfred. Der Brief an die Hebräer. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1912. Spicq, Ceslaus. L'Épître aux Hébreux. 2 vols. Études Bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 19521953. Stowers, Stanley K. “4 Maccabees.” Harper's Bible Commentary. Ed. James L. Mays. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. 922-34. Strack, H. L, and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 5 vols. München: Beck, 1922-26. Weiß, Hans-Friedrich. Der Brief an die Hebräer. Edited by Ferdinand Hahn. Kritischexegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Westcott, B. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Macmillan, 1903. Windisch, Hans. Der Hebräerbrief. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1931. General Works Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Edited by Wayne A. Meeks. Library of Early Christianity. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987. ———, ed. Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. 21: Bardy, G. “Melchisédech dans la tradition patristique.” Revue Biblique 35 (1927): 496509. Bousset, Wilhelm. Jüdisch-Christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom. Literarische Untersuchungen zu Philo und Clemens von Alexandria, Justin und Iraenäus. FRLANT. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1915. Collins, John J., and George W. E. Nickelsburg. Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. Delcor, M. “Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 2 (1971): 115-35. 153 Ebner, Eliezer. Elementary Education in Ancient Israel During the Tannaitic Period (10220 C.E.). New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1956. Filson, F. “Temple, Synagogue and Church.” The Biblical Archaeologist Reader. Ed. G. Wright and D. Freedman. Garden City: 1961. 183-200. Fischel, Henry A. Rabbinic Literature and Greco-Roman Philosophy. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973. Fitzmyer, Joseph. “Further Light on Melchisedek from Qumran Cave 11.” Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967): 25-41. Focke, F. Die Entstehung der Weisheit Salomos. Göttingen: 1913. Gammie, J. G. “Paraenetic Literature: Toward the Morphology of a Secondary Genre.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Series. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. 50: 41-77. Glad, Clarence E. Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychagogy. Edited by A. J. Malherbe and D. P. Moessner. Supplements to Novum Testamentum. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. Grundmann, Walter. “Die nhpioi in der urchristlichen Paraenese.” New Testament Studies 5 (1958-59): 188-205. Gutmann, J. The Synagogue. New York: 1975. ———. Ancient Synagogues. Brown Judaic Studies 22. Chico, CA: Scholar’s Press, 1981. Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. Edited by Leander Keck. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 18. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981. Jaeger, Werner. Early Christianity and Greek Paideia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965. Jonge, M. de, and A. S. van der Woude. “11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament.” New Testament Studies 12 (1965-66): 301-326. Koester, Helmut. Introduction to the New Testament. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982. Kohl, H., and Watzinger. Antike Synagogen in Galilaea. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. Leipzig: 1916. Kraabel, Thomas. “The Diaspora Synagogue.” Religion. Ed. Wolfgang Haase. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1979. 19.1: 477-507. Lieberman, Saul. Greek in Jewish Palestine. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942; repr. New York: Feldheim, 1965. 154 ———. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962. Lieberman, Saul. “How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?” Essays in Greco-Roman and Related Talmuaic Literature. Ed. Henry Fischel. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1977. 325-43. Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975. Malherbe, Abraham J. “Exhortation in First Thessalonians.” Novum Testamentum 25 (1983): 238-56. ———. Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Source-book. Library of Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986. ———. Paul and the Thessalonians. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. Marshall, Peter. Enmity in Corinth. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1987. May, H. “Synagogues in Palestine.” The Biblical Archaeologist Reader. Ed. G. Wright and D. Freedman. Garden City: 1961. 229-250. Pautrel, Raymond. “Les Canons du Mashal rabbinique.” Recherches de science religieuse 26 (1936): 16-42. Perdue, L. G. “Paraenesis and the Epistle of James.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 72 (1981): 241-256. Reese, James M. Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences. Analecta Biblica. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970. Rusche, H. “Die Gestalt des Melchisedek.” Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 6 (1955): Schille, Gottfried. “Katechese und Taufliturgie.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 51 (1960): 112-131. Seeberg, Alfred. Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit. Leipzig: Deichert, 1903. Simon, Marcel. “Melchisédech dans la polémique entre Juifs et Chrétiens et dans la légende.” Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses 1937 (1937): 58-93. Stork, H. Die sogenannten Melchisedekianer. Leipzig: ??, 1928. Stowers, Stanley K. The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. SBL Diss. Ser. 57. Chico, CA: Scholar’s Press, 1981. ———. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Edited by Wayne A. Meeks. Library of Early Christianity. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986. ———. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994. Waterhouse, P. The Figure of Melchizedek in Rabbinic and Philonic Literature. University of Leeds, 1977. 155 Wuttke, G. Melchisedech, der Priesterkönig von Salem. Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Exegese. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. Giessen: 1927. Zuntz, Gunther. The Text of the Epistles. London: 1953. Rhetoric Baldwin, C. S. Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic. New York: Macmillan, 1928. Barrow, R. H. Plutarch and His Times. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press, 1967. Berger, Klaus. “Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament.” Religion. Ed. Wolfgang Haase. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1984. 25.2: 1031-1432. Bolognesi, G. “Nuovi contributi allo studio del testo dei Progymnasmata di Elio Teone.” Athenaeum 47 (1969): 32-38. Bonner, Stanley F. Education in Ancient Rome: From the elder Cato to the younger Pliny. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977. Burgess, Theodore C. Epideictic Literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1902. Butts, James R. The Progymnasmata of Theon: A New Text with Translation and Commentary. Claremont Graduate School, 1986. Clark, Donald L. “The Rise and Fall of Progymnasmata in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Grammar Schools.” Speech Monographs 19 (1952): 259-263. ———. Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. Clarke, M. L. Rhetoric at Rome: A Historical Survey. London: Cohen and West, 1953. ———. Higher Education in the Ancient World. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971. Colson, F. H. “Quintilian 1.9 and the 'Chria' in Ancient Education.” Classical Review 35 (1921): 150-154. Daube, David. “Rabbinic methods of interpretation and Hellenistic rhetoric.” Hebrew Union College Annual 22 (1949): 239-264. Erbse, Hartmut. “Die Bedeutung der Synkrisis in den Parallelbiographien Plutarchs.” Hermes 84 (1956): 378-424. Fantham, Elaine. “Imitation and Decline.” Classical Philology 73 (1978): 102-116. Focke, F. “Synkrisis.” Hermes 58 (1923): 327-68. Gossage, A. J. “Plutarch.” Latin Biography. Ed. Dorey. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1967. 156 Graeven, H. “Die Progymnasmata des Nicolaus.” Hermes 30 (1895): 471-473. Gronewald, M. “Ein Fragment aus Theon, Progymnasmata.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 24 (1977): 23-24. Heinemann, I. “Synkrisis oder äussere Analgie in der ‘Weisheit Salomos’.” Theologische Zeitschrift 4 (1948): 241-52. Henderson, I. H. “Quintilian and the Progymnasmata.” A & A 37 (1991): 82–99. Jaeger, Werner. Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture. Translated by Gilbert Highet. 3 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1939-1944. Kaster, Robert A. “Notes on ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ Schools in Late Antiquity.” TAPA 113 (1983): 323–46. ———. Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity. Transformation of the Classical Heritage. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Kennedy, George A. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963. ———. Quintilian. New York: Twayne, 1969. ———. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World. Princeton: Princeton University, 1972. ———. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980. ———. Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983. ———. New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Lana, I. Quintiliano, Il "Sublime," e gli "Exercizi Preparatori" di Elio Teone. Torino: Universita di Torino, 1952. ———. Progimnasmi di Elio Teone. Torino: Universita di Torino, 1959. Mack, Burton L. Anecdotes and Arguments: The Chreia in Antiquity and Early Christianity. Occasional Papers of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity. Claremont: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, 1987. ———. Rhetoric and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Malherbe, Abraham J. “Ancient Epistolary Theorists.” (Ohio) Journal of Religious Studies 5 (1977): 3-77. Marrou, Henri I. A History of Education in Antiquity. Translated by George Lamb. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956. Martin, Josef. Antike Rhetorik: Technik und Methode. München: C. H. Beck, 1974. 157 Meador, Prentice A. “Quintilian and the Institutio Oratoria.” A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric. Ed. James J. Murphy. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press, 1983. 151-176. Nadeau, R. “The Progymnasmata of Aphthonius in Translation.” Speech Monographs 19 (1952): 264-285. Olbricht, Thomas H. A Rhetorical Analysis of Representative Homilies of Basil the Great. University of Iowa, 1959. ———. “An Aristotelian Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Thessalonians.” Greeks, Romans and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Ed. E. Ferguson and W. Meeks D. L. Balch. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. 216–36. Pelling, Christopher B. R. “Synkrisis in Plutarch’s Lives.” Miscellanea Plutarchea. Ferrara: Giornale Filologico Ferrarese, 1986. 83-96. Postgate, J. P. “Quintilian, 1.9.2.” CT 33 (1919): 108. Smith, Robert W. The Art of Rhetoric in Alexandria: It’s Theory and Practice in the Ancient World. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974. Stegemann, W. “Theon.” Real-Encyclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Ed. A. F. Pauly, G. Wissowa, W. Kroll and K. Mittelhaus. Zweite Reihe ed. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1884. 2: 2038-2039. Stowers, Stanley K. “The Diatribe.” Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament. Ed. David E. Aune. SBL Sources for Biblical Study. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. 21: 71-83. Swain, S. “Plutarchas Synkrisis.” Eranos 90 (1992): 101–11. Wardman, Alan. Plutarch’s Lives. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1974. Wilkins, A. S. Roman Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Midrash Barth, Lewis M. “Reading Rabbinic Bible Exegesis.” Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Studies in Liturgy, Exegesis, and Talmudic Narrative. Ed. William Scott Green. Brown Judaic Studies. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. 4: 81-93. Bloch, Renée. “Écriture et tradition dans le judaisme: Apercus sur l’origine du midrash.” Cahiers sioniens 8 (1954): 1-34. ———. “Midrash.” Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice. Ed. William Scott Green. Translated by Mary Howard Callaway. Brown Judaic Studies. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1978. 1: 29-50. 158 Bonsirven, Joseph. “Genres littéraires dans la littérature juive post-biblique.” Biblica 35 (1954): 328-45. Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Edited by Wayne A. Meeks. Library of Early Christianity. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987. Doeve, J. W. Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Assen: van Gorcum, 1954. Finkelstein, Louis. “Studies in the Tannaitic Midrashim.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research 6 (1934-35): 189-228. ———. “The Oldest Midrash: Pre-Rabbinic Ideals and Teachings in the Passover Haggadah.” Harvard Theological Review 31 (1938): 291-317. ———. “Sources of the Tannaitic Midrashim.” Jewish Quarterly Review 31 (1940-41): 211-43. Fishbane, Michael, ed. The Midrashic Imagination: Exegesis, Thought and History. Albany: State University of New York, 1993. Gertner, M. “Midrashim in the New Testament.” Journal of Semitic Studies 7 (1962): 268269. Hallewy, E. E. “The Writers of the Aggada and the Greek Grammarians.” Tarbiz 29 (1959/60): 47-55. ———. “Biblical Midrash and Homeric Exegesis.” Tarbiz 31 (1961/62): 157-69, 264-80. Heinemann, Joseph. “The Art of Composition in Leviticus Rabbah.” HaSifrut (19691970): 808-34. ———. “Profile of a midrash; the art of composition in Leviticus Rabbah.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 39 (1971): 141-50. Jaffee, Martin S. “The ‘Midrashic’ Proem: Towards the Description of Rabbinic Exegesis.” Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Studies in Liturgy, Exegesis, and Talmudic Narrative. Ed. William Scott Green. Brown Judaic Studies. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. 4: 95-112. LeDéaut, R. “A propos d’une définition du midrash.” Biblica 50 (1969): 395-413. Mayer, G. “Midrash.” Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Ed. T. Klauser. Stuttgart: 1950ff. 6: 1196ff. Meyer, R. Hellenistisches in der rabbinischen Anthropologie. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament. 1937. Neusner, Jacob. “History and midrash.” Judaism 9 (1960): 47-54. ———. What is Midrash? Edited by Dan O. Via. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. 159 Porton, Gary G. “Midrash: Palestinian Jews and the Hebrew Bible in the Greco-Roman Period.” Religion. Ed. Wolfgang Haase. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1979. 19.2: 103-38. ———. “Defining Midrash.” The Study of Ancient Judaism. Vol. 1. Mishnah, Midrash, Siddur. Ed. Jacob Neusner. New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1981. 5992. ———. Understanding Rabbinic Midrash: Texts and Commentary. Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1985. Saldarini, Anthony J. “Judaism and the New Testament.” The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters. Ed. Eldon Jay Epp and George W. MacRae. The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989. Sarason, Richard S. “Toward a New Agendum for the Study of Rabbinic Midrashic Literature.” The Joseph Heinemann Memorial Volume. Ed. E. Fleischer J. Petuchowski. 1981. Stein, E. “Ein jüdisch-hellenistischer Midrasch über den Auszug aus Ägypten.” Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 78 (1934): 241-52. Vermes, Geza. “Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis.” The Cambridge History of the Bible. Ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. 1: 199-231. Wartski, I. “The Greek element in an enigmatical midrashic homily.” Tarbiz 35 (1965): 132-36. Woude, A. S. van der. “Melchisedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt in den neugefundenen Eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Höhle XI.” Oudtestamentische Studiën 14 (1965): 354-373. Wright, Addison G. “The Literary Genre Midrash.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 1966 (1966): 105-38, 415-57. Zeitlin, Solomon. “Midrash: A Historical Study.” Jewish Quarterly Review 44 (1953): 2136. Homily Bacher, W. Die Proömien der alten jüdischen Homilie. Beitrag zur Geschichte der jüdischen Schriftauslegung und Homiletik. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament. Leipzig: 1913. Billerbeck, P. “Ein Synagogengottesdienst in Jesu Tagen.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 55 (1964): 156,57. 160 Black II, C. Clifton. “The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon.” Harvard Theological Review 81 (1988): 1-18. Borgen, P. Bread From Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo. Edited by W. C. van Unnik. Supplements to Novum Testamentum. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965. ———. “Bread From Heaven: Aspects of Debates on Expository Method and Form.” Logos was the True Light: And Other Essays on the Gospel of John. Publications edited by the Department of Religious Studies, University of Trondheim. Trondheim: Tapir Publishers, 1983. 9: 32-46. Bowker, J. W. “Speeches in Acts: A Study of Proem and Yellamedenu Form.” New Testament Studies 14 (1967): 96-111. Bristol, L. O. “Primitive Christian Preaching and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Journal of Biblical Literature 68 (1949): 89-97. Bultmann, Rudolf. Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und neuen Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910. Cave, C. H. The Influences of the Lectionary of the Synagogue on the Formation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 1960. Dahl, Nils. “Form-Critical Observations on Early Christian Preaching.” Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church. Ed. Nils Dahl. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976. Delling, Gerhard. Worship in the New Testament. Philadelphia: 1962. Dodd, Charles H. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962. Donfried, Karl Paul. The Setting of Second Clement in Early Christianity. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974. Heinemann, Joseph. Sermons within the Community in the Talmudic Period. Jerusalem: 1970. ———. “The Proem in the Aggadic Midrashim: A Form-Critical Study.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971): 100-22. Hunter, David G., ed. Preaching in the Patristic Age: Studies in Honor of Walter J. Burghardt, S.J. New York: Paulist Press, 1989. Kerr, Hugh Thomson. Preaching in the Early Church. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1942. Liefeld, Walter Lewis. The Wandering Preacher as a Social Figure in the Roman Empire. Columbia University, 1967. MacDonald, Alexander. Christian Worship in the Primitive Church. Ediburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1934. 161 Mann, J. The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue. New York: 1971. Maybaum, S. Die ältesten Phasen in der Entwicklung der jüdischen Predigt. Neunzehnter Bericht über die Lehranstalt für die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin. Berlin: 1901. Petuchowski, Jakob J. “The Liturgy of the Synagogue: History, Structure, and Contents.” Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Studies in Liturgy, Exegesis, and Talmudic Narrative. Ed. William Scott Green. Brown Judaic Studies. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. 4: 1-64. Reicke, Bo. “A Synopsis of Early Christian Preaching.” The Root of the Vine: Essays in Biblical Theology. Ed. Anton Fridrichsen. Westminster: Dacre, 1953. 128-60. Sarason, Richard S. “The Petihtot in Leviticus Rabba: ‘Oral Homilies’ or Redactional Constructions.” Journal of Jewish Studies 32/1-2 (1982): 557-58. Sedgwick, W. B. “The Origins of the Sermon.” Hibbert Journal 45 (1946-47): 158-64. Smith, Morton. Tannaitic Parallels to the Gospels. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1951. Stegner, William Richard. “The Ancient Jewish Synagogue Homily.” Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament. Ed. David E. Aune. SBL Sources for Biblical Study. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. 21: 51-69. Stein, E. “Die homiletische Peroratio im Midrasch.” Hebrew Union College Annual 8-9 (1931-32): 353-71. Stowers, Stanley K. “Social Status, Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul’s Preaching Activity.” Novum Testamentum 26 (1984): 5982. Theodor, J. “Der Komposition der Agadischen Homilien.” Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 28 (1979): 97-113, 164-75, 271-78. Thyen, Hartwig. Der Stil der Jüdisch-Hellenistischen Homilie. Edited by Rudolf Bultmann. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und neuen Testaments. Göttigen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955. Wilamowitz, U. von, and Moellendorff. “Der Kynische prediger Teles.” Antigonus von Karystos. Philol. Unters. 4. Berlin: 1881. 292-319. Wilckens, Ulrich. Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974. Wills, Lawrence. “The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity.” Harvard Theological Review 77:3-4 (1984): 277-99. Worley, Robert C. Preaching and Teaching in the Earliest Church. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967. 162 Zunz, Leopold. Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt. Ein Beitrag zur Altertumskunde und biblischen Kritik, zur Literatur- und Religionsgeschichte. 2 ed. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1966. Hebrews Adams, J. C. “Exegesis of Hebrews vi.1f.” New Testament Studies 13 (1967): 378-385. Albani, J. “Hebr. v,11-vi,8. Ein Wort zur Verfasserschaft des Apollos.” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie NF 12 (1904): 88-93. Alexander, J. P. A Priest Forever: A Study of the Epistle Entitled “To the Hebrews.”. London: 1937. Andriessen, Paul, and A. Lenglet. “Quelques passages difficiles de l’Épître aux Hébreux (v,7,11; x,20; xii,2).” Biblica 51 (1970): 207-20. Attridge, Harold W. “The uses of antithesis in Hebrews 8-10.” Harvard Theological Review 79 (1986): 1-9. ———. “The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’.” Semeia 50 (1990): 211-226. Auberlen, K. A. “Melchisekek's ewiges Leben und Priesterthum.” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 30 (1857): 453-504. Black, David Alan. “The Problem of the Literary Structure of Hebrews: An Evaluation and a Proposal.” Grace Theological Journal 7 (1986): 163-77. Blass, Friedrich. “Die rhythmische Komposition des Hebräerbriefes.” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 75 (1902): 420-61. ———. Brief an die Hebräer: Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen. Halle: Niemeyer, 1903. Bruce, F. F. “‘To the Hebrews’ or ‘To the Essenes’.” New Testament Studies 9 (1963): 217-232. ———. “The Structure and Argument of Hebrews.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 28 (1985): 6-12. ———. “‘To the Hebrews’: A Document of Roman Christianity?” Religion. Ed. Wolfgang Haase. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1987. 25.4: 3496-3521. Buchanan, George W. “The Present State of Scholarship on Hebrews.” Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults, I. Festschrift Morton Smith. Ed. Jacob Neusner. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975. 299-330. Burch, V. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Its Sources and Message., 1936. Coppens, J. “Les affinités qumrâniennes de l’Épître aux Hébreux.” La nouvelle revue théologique 94 (1962): 128-41; 257-82. 163 Cosby, Michael R. The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11: In Light of Example Lists in Antiquity. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1988. D'Angelo, Mary R. Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979. Dahms, J. H. “The First Readers of Hebrews.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 (1977): 365-75. Demarest, Bruce. A History of Interpretation of Hebrews 7,1-10 from the Reformation to the Present. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1976. DeSilva, David A. “Despising Shame: a Cultural-Anthropological Investigation of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Journal of Biblical Literature 113 (1994): 430-61. Dibelius, Martin. “Der himmlische Kultus nach dem Hebräerbrief.” Theologische Blätter 21 (1942): 1-11. Dussaut, Louis. Synopse Structurelle de l'Épître aux Hébreux: Approache d' Analyse Structurelle. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1981. ———. “Histoire et Structure de l'épître aux Hébreux.” LumVie 43 (1994): 5–13. Eccles, Robert S. “The Purpose of the Hellenistic Patterns in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough. Ed. J. Neusner. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968. 207-226. Feld, Helmut. Der Hebräerbrief. Erträge der Forschung. Darmstadt: 1985. ———. “Der Hebräerbrief: Literarische Form, religionsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund, theologische Fragen.” Religion. Ed. Wolfgang Haase. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1987. 25.4: 3522-3601. Fitzmyer, Joseph. “‘Now this Melchizekek...’ (Heb 7:1).” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963): 305-321. Friedländer, M. “La secte de Melchisédec et l'Epitre aux Hébreux.” Revue des études juives 5,6 (1882-1883): 5:1-26; 188-198; 6:187-199. Grässer, Erich. “Der Hebräerbrief 1938-1963.” Theologisches Rundschau 30 (1964): 138236. Guthrie, George H. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis. Supplements to Novum Testamentum. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994. Gyllenberg, R. “Die Komposition des Hebräerbriefs.” Svensk exegetisk årsbok 22-23 (1957-1958): 137-147. Haering, T. “Gedankengang und Grundgedanken des Hebräerbriefes.” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 18 (1917-18): 145-164. Hagen, Kenneth. Hebrews Commenting from Erasmus to Bèze: 1516-1598. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Biblischen Exegese. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1981. 164 Horton, F. L. The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Society of New Testament Monograph Series. Cambridge - New York: 1976. Howard, W. F. “The Epistle to the Hebrews.” Interpretation 5 (1951): 80-91. Hughes, Graham. Hebrews and Hermeneutics: The Epistle to the Hebrews as a New Testament Example of Biblical Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Hurst, Lincoln Douglas. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Jérôme, Franz Joseph. Das geschichtliche Melchisedek-Bild und seine Bedeutung im Hebräerbrief. Strassburg: Benziger, 1917. Jones, C. P. M. “The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Lucan Writings.” Studies in the Gospels. Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot. Ed. D. E. Nineham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955. 113-143. Käsemann, Ernst. Das wandernde Gottesvolk: Eine Untersuchung zum Hebräerbrief. Edited by Rudolf Bultmann. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959. Kistemaker, Simon J. The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Amsterdam: Soest, 1961. Lindars, Barnabas. “The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews.” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 382–406. Linss, William C. “Logical Terminology in the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Concordia Theological Monthly 37 (1966): 365-69. Longenecker, Richard N. “The Melchizedek Argument of Hebrews: A Study in the Development and Circumstantial Expression of New Testament Thought.” Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd. Ed. Robert A Guelich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. 161-85. McCown, Wayne G. ïO lovgo" th'" paraklhvsew". The Nature and Function of the Hortatory Sections in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Diss. Union Theological Seminary, Virginia, 1970. McCullough, J. C. “Some Recent Developments in Research on the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Irish Biblical Studies 2 (1980): 141-65. Michel, Otto. “Zur Auslegung des Hebräerbriefs.” Novum Testamentum 6 (1963): 189ff. Nauck, Wolfgang. “Zum Aufbau des Hebräerbriefs.” Judentum, urchristentum, Kirche, Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias. Ed. Walther Eltester. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960. 26: 199-206. 165 Neeley, Linda Lloyd. “A Discourse Analysis of Hebrews.” Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics 3–4 (1987): 1–146. Nissilä, Keijo. Das Hohepriestermotiv im Hebräerbrief: Eine Exegetische Untersuchung. Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 33. Helsinki: Oy Liiton Kirjapaino, 1979. Nomoto, S. “Herkunft und Struktur der Hohepriestervorstellung im Hebräerbrief.” Novum Testamentum 10 (1968): 10-25. Olbricht, Thomas H. “Hebrews as Amplification.” Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. Ed. Stanley E. Porter Thomas H. Olbricht. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. 90: 375-387. Owen, H. P. “The ‘Stages of Ascent’ in Hebrews V.11-VI.3.” New Testament Studies 3 (1957): Peterson, David. Hebrews and Perfection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Ploeg, J. van der. “L’Exégèse de l’Ancien Testament dans l’Épître aux Hébreux.” Revue Biblique 54 (1947): 187-228. Schröger, F. Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefs als Schriftausleger. Biblische Untersuchungen 4. Regensburg, Germany: 1968. Smith, Jerome. A Priest Forever: A Study of Typology and Eschatology in Hebrews. London: Sheed and Ward, 1969. Spicq, C. “L’Épître aux Hébreux: Apollos, Jean-Baptiste, les Hellénistes et Qumrân.” Revue de Qumran 1 (1959): 365-90. ———. “L’Épître aux Hébreux et Philon: Un cas d’Insertion de la littérature sacrée dans la Culture profane du Ier siècle (Hébr. V,11 - VI,20 et le ‘De sacrificiis Abelis et Caïni’ de Philon.” Religion. Ed. Wolfgang Haase. Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1987. 25.4: 3602-3618. Stanley, Steve. “Hebrews 9:6–10: The “Parable” of the Tabernacle.” Novum Testamentum 37 (1995): 385–399. Swetnam, James. “On the Literary Genre of the 'Epistle' to the Hebrews.” Novum Testamentum 11 (1969): 261-69. ———. “Form and Content in Hebrews 1-6.” Biblica 53 (1972): 368-385. ———. “Form and Content in Hebrews 7-13.” Biblica 55 (1974): 333-348. Theissen, Gerd. Untersuchungen zum Hebräerbrief. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969. Thomas, K. J. “The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews.” New Testament Studies 11 (1964/5): 303-325. Thompson, James W. “The Underlying Unity of Hebrews.” Restoration Quarterly 18 (1975): 129-136. 166 ———. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982. Thornton, T. C. G. “Review of La structure littéraire de l' Épître aux Hébreux by Albert Vanhoye.” Journal of Theological Studies 15 (1964): 137-41. Thüsing, Wilhelm. “‘Milch’ und ‘Feste Speise’ (1 Kor 3,1f und Hebr 5,11-6,3). Elementarkatachese und theologische Vertiefung in neutestamentlicher Sicht.” Trierer theologische Zeitschrift 76 (1967): 233-46, 261-80. Überlacker, Walter. Der Hebräerbrief als Appell: Untersuchungen zu exordium, narratio und postscriptum. Coniectanea Biblica, New Testament Series. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989. Vaganay, Leon. “Le plan de l’Épître aux Hébreux.” Memorial Lagrange. Ed. L. H. Vincent. Paris: Gabalda, 1940. 269-277. Vanhoye, Albert. La Structure Littéraire de L’Épître aux Hébreux. Studia Neotestamentica. Paris: Desclée De Brouwer, 1963. ———. “Longue marche ou accès tout proche? Le context biblique de Hébreux 3,7–4,11.” Biblica 49 (1968): 9–26. ———. “Trois Ouvarages récent sur l'Épître aux Hébreux.” Biblica 52 (1971): 62–71. ———. “Discussions sur la structure de l’Épître aux Hébreux.” Biblica 55 (1974): 349380. ———. “Literarische Struktur und theologische Botschaft des Hebräerbriefs (1.Teil).” Studien zum Neuen Testament 4 (1979): 119–47. ———. “Literarische Struktur und theologische Botschaft des Hebräerbriefs (2.Teil).” Studien zum Neuen Testament 5 (1980): 18–49. ———. Homilie für haltbedürftige Christen. Struktur und Botschaft des Hebräerbriefes. Regensburg: 1981. ———. “Heb 6,7-8 et le mashal rabbinique.” The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke. Ed. William C. Weinrich. Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1984. 2.527-32. ———. Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by James Swetnam. Subsidea Biblica 12. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989. Williamson, Ronald. Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenist. Judentums. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970. Wrede, Wilhelm. Das literarische Rätsel des Hebräerbriefs. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1906. Yadin, Yigael. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Scripta Hierosolymitana: Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls 4 (1958): 36-55. 167