Hebrews

5/4/11 4:08 PM

Wordtrade.com Bible
Review Essays of Academic, Professional & Technical Books in the Humanities & Sciences

WT Main

About WT

Review Links

Contact

Review Sources

Search

NT Hebrews
A Different Priest: The Epistle to the Hebrews by Albert Vanhoye (Convivium Press) The first part, which only examines one theme, the Name of Christ, offers a lo general and contemporary Christology. The next two parts offer a priestly Christology, firstly more general and then more specific. Finally, the last two parts show the result of this for the Christian life, lived out in faith, hope and charity. The author of this work, has worked for many years on the Epistle to the Hebrews, and, notably, has taught it at the Biblical Institute and published a great number of specialist articles and Books on it, and now brings one of the most contemporary authoritative commentaries to a wider audience, contributing with the understanding of the unique Priesthood of Jesus Christ for the first Christian communities. In this work, a detailed analysis of the text known as the Epistle to the Hebrews enables us to conclude without a shadow of a doubt that this is the full text of a splendid Christian preaching which constantly conforms to the rules of Semitic rhetoric, including various genres of parallelism, synonymis, antithesis and complementarity, and obeying a concentrically symmetrical schema. Several learned societies exist whose objective is the study of rhetoric. The Society for the Study of Biblical and Semitic Rhetoric (RBS ) is the only one that is devoted exclusively to the study of Semitic literature, in particular the Bible, but also others texts, for example of Muslim origin; that consequently is dedicated to listing and describing the particular laws of a rhetoric that have governed the composition of texts which are of no less importance than those of the Greek and Latin world, of which modern Western civilization is the heir. It must not be forgotten that this same Western civilization is also heir to the Judeo-Christian tradition, which has its origin in the Bible, that is to say, in the Semitic world. More broadly, the texts that we study are the foundational texts of the three great monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Such academic study, the primary condition for better mutual knowledge, can contribute to a rapprochement between those who belong to these diverse traditions. Founded in Rome, where its headquarters are situated, the Society for the Study of Biblical and Semitic Rhetoric (RBS) is a not-for-profit organization, under Italian law, that promotes and sustains research and publications especially in the Biblical field, both the New and Old Testaments; but also of other Semitic texts, in particular those of Islam. The essential objective of the RBS is to promote research projects, exchanges between Universities and publications in the area of Biblical and Semitic Rhetoric, thanks especially to the collection of necessary funds for financing these diverse projects. The Society for the Study of Biblical and Semitic Rhetoric first and foremost welcomes and brings together Scholars and University Professors who, in
http://www.wordtrade.com/religion/bible/biblehebrewsR.htm#vanhoye

Headline 3
insert content here

Page 1 of 14

Hebrews

5/4/11 4:08 PM

different Universities and Institutes, both in Italy and abroad, work in the area of Biblical and Semitic Rhetoric. It is open also to those who are interested in research and are intent on supporting it. For more information on the RBS, see: www.retoricabiblicaesemitica.org Many people think that classical rhetoric, inherited from the Greeks via the Romans, is universal this is what seems to govern modern culture, which the West has spread through the whole world. But the time has come to abandon this ethnocentrism classical rhetoric is no longer alone in the world. We cannot judge everything according to the small village where we were born and which we have never left, whether that little village is Paris, Rome, Berlin, or even NewYork. The Hebrew Bible, whose texts were mostly written in Hebrew, but also in Aramaic, uses a very different rhetoric from Greco-Roman rhetoric, so we need to acknowledge that there is another rhetoric, which we refer to as Hebrew Rhetoric. Other biblical texts from the Old and New Testaments, which were translated into or written directly in Greek broadly follow the same rules; we can therefore rightly talk not just about Hebrew rhetoric but more broadly about Biblical Rhetoric. Furthermore, these same laws were later recognized to be at work in Akkadian, Ugaritic and other texts which were earlier than the Hebrew Bible, and then in Arabic texts from the Muslim tradition and the Qur'an, later than the biblical literature. This rhetoric, then, is not only biblical, and we might even say that all these texts, which come from the same cultural sphere, belong within the same rhetorical style which we refer to as Semitic Rhetoric. Contrary to the inevitable impression of western readers, these texts from the Semitic tradition, whether the Prophets, the Gospels, or the Qur'an, are carefully composed, pro-viding that they are analyzed according to the rhetorical laws which govern them. We know that the text's form and arrangement is the main gate which gives access to its meaning; although its composition does not directly and automatically provide the meaning. However, when formal analysis leads to a thoughtful division of the text, defining its context more objectively, emphasizing the way it is organized at its different structural levels, then the conditions which allow the work of interpretation come together on less subjective and fragmentary bases. Rhetorical analysis is a particularly well-adapted method in the case of the interpretation of the Letter to the Hebrews, because that letter is in reality a speech, a magnificent homily, made to be delivered to a Christian assembly in apostolic times. In all probability it was in fact delivered, even in several places, because certain details in his text show that its author was an itinerant preacher. But it was also sent in writing to one or several distant communities. On that occasion some epistolary sentences (13,22-25) were added to it after its solemn conclusion (13.20-21). It is thanks to that circumstance that it was preserved for us. It also caused it to be called an epistle or letter. But is it enough to send a homily by post for it to be transformed into a letter? Quite clearly not. Its literary genre remains the same. From its exordium (1,1-4) until its conclusion (13,20-21) the Letter to the Hebrews has the literary genre of oral discourse and not that of the written letter. There is hardly any recent commentator who does not recognize that fact. Consequently, it is not only useful but indispensable to submit this text to rhetorical analysis if one wishes to interpret it correctly. To proceed any other way leads to dead-ends. To give an example straight away, the famous passages on unforgivable sins (6,4-8; 10,26-31) give rise to inextricable doctrinal difficulties, unless one recognizes in them an oratorical device which has to be analysed as such in order to give it its correct meaning. Only rhetorical analysis makes it possible to follow correctly the development of the thought in its overall movement and in the detail of its expression. It alone can get the zeal of the preacher fully appreciated as well as his skill in drawing his listeners towards the heights of the faith and Christian life.

http://www.wordtrade.com/religion/bible/biblehebrewsR.htm#vanhoye

Page 2 of 14

Hebrews

5/4/11 4:08 PM

In one sense the text of the Letter to the Hebrews lends itself well to rhetorical analysis, in another it makes it difficult. It lends itself well to it because the author regularly uses certain compositional procedures easy enough to identify, such as inclusion and symmetrical arrangements. But a full analysis is difficult because the author clearly has a complex, Judaeo-Hellenistic education and so plays on several planes at the same time. To varying extents he associates procedures of biblical rhetoric with those of Greek rhetoric which, in general, are clearly different'. This association takes different forms. Sometimes it is just a matter of simple juxtaposition and sometimes a more or less complex amalgam. Thus it is that one of the most important procedures in Greek rhetoric, the prothesis, is used by the author of Hebrews in a way that is not Greek but biblical. The prothesis, in Latin propositio, consists in announcing the subject one is about to treat. In the interests of clarity we shall usually call it announcement of the subject. When the announcement contains several themes which will be developed later one after the other, classical rhetoric requires that they be developed in the order in which they were announced. According to Quintilian's rhetoric, which offers us the quintessence of GraecoLatin rhetoric, not to follow in the development the order adopted in the propositio is a very serious fault: Turpissimum vero non eodem ordine exsequi, quo quidque proposueris ( Orat. Inst., book 4, end of chapter 5). The author of Hebrews, as we shall discover, never conforms to this prescription but, on the contrary, he always first of all develops the theme that he announced at the end. Why? Because biblical rhetoric urges him in that direction with its very strong tendency in favour of chiastic constructions (AB CDCBA) in which to the last element in a series there corresponds immediately the first element of the next series. Another example of disagreement: classical rhetoric recommends avoiding verbal repetitions, especially when ending a paragraph. The end of a paragraph must certainly correspond with its beginning but it is suitable, they say, not to express oneself in identical terms in it because that would manifest a lack of mental ability or laziness and would be likely to bore the hearers. Clever variation, on the contrary, arouses admiration and renews interest. Biblical rhetoric knows nothing of this concern and calls much more for the regular use of verbal repetitions to mark out dearly the limits of literary units, great or small. This is what is called the process of inclusion; it consists of repeating at the end of each passage a more or less long expression that was used at the beginning of the same passage; on recognizing that expression, the listeners understand that the passage is finished. The author of Hebrews shows himself particularly faithful to this biblical way of writing. On this point, as on others, his turn of mind is more Semitic than Hellenistic. To appreciate fully the details of the text, it helps to have first taken an overall view of its composition, because each detail is determined by its function in the whole document. We shall therefore start with a quick reading which will be interested only in indications of structure and the main divisions of the text. The methodical examination of the text of the Letter to the Hebrews leads to the conclusion, without a shadow of doubt, that here we have a unique case in the New Testament the complete text of a Christian sermon, followed by a very short dispatch note. Being a Christian sermon, this work does not fit into any of the three categories recognized by Graeco-Latin rhetoric. It is neither a lawyer's plea before a tribunal, nor a politician's speech seeking to convince an assembly, nor a set speech on some solemn occasion. Christian preaching corresponds to none of these three kinds. It has its own originality. It proclaims faith in Christ and commits the listeners to conform their life to this faith. The Letter to the Hebrews is above all a thorough investigation into faith in Christ. It is a serious mistake to see mainly an exhortation in it. Of course, it is also an exhortation, but in dependence on the expose on the faith. The author has made a discovery that no one, it seems, had made before him. He discovered that the second oracle in Psalm109 (110) applies, like the first, to the glorification of Christ and adds something very important to the first. The first oracle, applied to Christ right from the beginning of Christian preaching (Acts 2,34), shows him seated at God's right hand. The second, more solemn than the
http://www.wordtrade.com/religion/bible/biblehebrewsR.htm#vanhoye Page 3 of 14

Hebrews

5/4/11 4:08 PM

first because it is guaranteed by an oath from God, states that this glorification is a priestly glorification. Jesus, who could not be a priest according to the Law of Moses, became a priest through his paschal mystery and was proclaimed by God priest for ever, and even high priest, because he was priest according to the order of Melchisedek, a person who was priest and king. Having made that discovery, the author was not content to publish it by proclaiming, according to Scripture, Christ became high priest for ever; he did much more: in the light of the priestly oracle, he went into the whole mystery of Christ and grasped all the new aspects of his priesthood and of his sacrifice, new aspects which are the perfect accomplishment of the Old Testament, that is to say that they have a threefold relation with the Old Testament:1) a fundamental relation of continuity; 2) as well as a relation of difference on the points that left certain things to be desired; and 3) a relation of definite improvement. The author then proceeded with order and method. First he began, in an early part, by helping his listeners to pass from a traditional Christology to a priestly Christology. Traditional Christology proclaims that Christ was glorified as son I of God, after suffering his Passion in solidarity with mankind. The author shows that Christ thus reached a position of mediator between God and mankind, in 1 other words: a position of high priest (2,17) Having said that, the author exposes his priestly Christology at length. He expounds it in two clearly distinct, but complementary stages. Many commentators do not see these two stages; they see just a great expose of priestly Christology, which goes, according to them, from the end of chapter 4 until the middle of chapter to. That is a serious mistake; it prevents one from understanding the author's doctrine properly. It cuts off, in fact, the priesthood of Christ from its relation to the proclamation of the word of God, which is an essential dimension to it, expressed in 3,1-6. Moreover, these commentators do not see that the author, at an early stage, expresses the relation of continuity with the Old Testament. Christ the high priest is trustworthy like Moses (3,1-2); he was named high priest by God like Aaron (5,4-5). He fully possesses the two priestly qualities: trustworthy for relations with God (2,17) and merciful (247) for relations with mankind. Overlooking this continuity stage seriously upsets the balance in the author's theology. The second stage stresses, on the other hand, the differences and demonstrates the superiority of the priesthood of Christ, which is not according to the order of Aaron (7,11), and that of his sacrifice, for which he did not use the blood of goats and of calves but his own blood (9,12) and thanks to which he did not enter into a work-of-hands sanctuary, but into heaven itself (9,24). In his homily, the author does not place a watertight barrier between a doctrinal part and a moral part, but, as an excellent preacher, he is concerned always to insert doctrine into life. As from the middle of the first part, he takes care to summon people not to neglect salvation (2,3). In the second part, after a short expose on Christ the trustworthy high priest (3,1-6), he has a long exhortation against incredulity (3,12.19) and indocility (4,6.11). The central part is enclosed in two important exhortations, which are parallel (5,11-6,20 and 10,19-39). The second, especially, is important because it provides the liaison between the great doctrinal expose (7,1-10,18) and all the rest of the homily, which is predominantly exhortation. All this takes us very far from Graeco-Latin rhetoric. Let us remember, in particular, that the latter prescribed placing the most important elements in a speech at the beginning and at the end and the less important ones in the centre . Our author did exactly the contrary: he put the most important points of his doctrine in the middle, underlining their importance with a very vigorous call for attention (5,11-12). This way of composing corresponds to Semitic rhetoric, which attracts attention to the central part of the development. The whole of the Letter to the Hebrews is a magnificent concentric composition, the central part of which is
http://www.wordtrade.com/religion/bible/biblehebrewsR.htm#vanhoye Page 4 of 14

Hebrews

5/4/11 4:08 PM

also concentric, with, at its centre, a section arranged according to the plan A B A - A' B' B'. In the centre, the name of Christ (9,11) shines out over all. This way of composing is related to mental habits quite different from our western habits, which lead us to compose mainly in a linear and not circular fashion. The biblical authors are less concerned with establishing a logical connection between one sentence and the next than they are with bringing out a multiplicity of relations between the various elements in the text. They thus stir up a different mental activity, which can be thought more productive because to understand properly it is important to know how to compare. What has just been said about the composition as a whole is also true for the details of the text. The latter continually uses biblical parallelism, in its most diverse forms, the principal ones of which are synonymous parallelisms and antithetic parallelisms; their arrangement can go in the same direction, A B A's', or in reverse direction A B B' A', in chiastic form. Here again, mental activity is stimulated to make continual comparisons which reveal nuances that a linear text is unable to express. It seems to me highly desirable that exegetes let themselves be educated more and more by the biblical texts themselves, instead of trying, as often happens, to impose inadequate categories coming from elsewhere on them. Essays on John and Hebrews by Harold W. Attridge (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament: Mohr Siebeck) Harold W. Attridge has engaged in the interpretation of two of the most intriguing literary products of early Christianity, the Gospel according to John and the Epistle to the Hebrews. His essays explore the literary and cultural traditions at work in the text and its imaginative rhetoric aiming to deepen faith in Christ by giving new meaning to his death and exaltation. His essays on John focus on the literary artistry of the final version of the gospel, its playful approach to literary genres, its engaging rhetoric, its delight in visual imagery. He situates that literary analysis of both works within the context of the history of religion and culture in the first century, with careful attention to both Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds. Several essays, focusing on the phenomena connected with "Gnosticism", extend that reiligio-historical horizon into to the life of the early Church and contribute to the understanding of the reception of these two early Christian masterpieces. More Allegory Transformed: The Appropriation of Philonic Hermeneutics in the Letters to the Hebrews by Stefan Nordgaard Svendsen (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament / Scientific Research on the New Testament: Mohr Siebeck) Was Christianity influenced by ancient philosophy right from the beginning? Stefan Nordgaard Svendsen argues that one of the most fascinating and elusive documents of the New Testament canon, the Letter to the Hebrews, was deeply steeped in Hellenistic philosophy and that careful consideration of this intellectual background sheds new light on the thought world and purpose of the letter. Tradition has it, so Eusebius informs us, that Philo once visited Rome during the reign of Claudius (41-54 CE) to speak with the apostle Peter. The bishop does not inform us of the topic or the purpose of the conversation, but he considers the tradition credible given that Philo later composed a treatise (the De vita contemplativa) on the lifestyle and hermeneutics of an ascetic Christian community (HE 2.17.1). The treatise reveals, he adds, not only that Philo was familiar with Christianity, but also that he "welcomed, admired and honoured the apostolic men of his day" (2.17.2). Obviously, this is all legend. Philo never met with Peter, and he probably never visited Rome after his failed mission to Gaius Caligula in 39/40 CE. And whatever he was doing in the Contempl., he certainly was not describing a Christian monastic community. Even so, the tradition (and the fact that Eusebius so willingly accepts it) is enlightening since it reveals that Christian writers of the patristic era were eager to embrace Philo, to domesticate him and to make him 'one of their own'. For several of the church fathers the writings of Philo were a major source of inspiration, and the tradition that he was also personally known by figures of the early church is indicative of their welcoming
http://www.wordtrade.com/religion/bible/biblehebrewsR.htm#vanhoye Page 5 of 14