Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Hebrews at the Annual SBL Meeting

There are a number of sessions and papers on Hebrews during the upcoming SBL Conference in Chicago. The following includes both the times and places, but also the abstracts of all the papers pertaining to Hebrews.

We would like to have another Hebrews dinner after one of the sessions. The best time that works for me is Sunday lunch, as I have another commitment on Saturday evening, but this does not preclude having a get-together on Saturday evening as well. I hope you will join me and others for lunch on Sunday after the morning session. 


Bible, Myth, and Myth Theory
1:00 PM to 2:30 PM
Room: N140 - McCormick PlaceTheme: Mythic Motifs in the Bible

Jeremy Miselbrook, Loyola University of Chicago 
Jesus the Hero: The Heroic Portrayal of Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews

"Scholars have long theorized about the possibility of a Hellenistic-hero background to New Testament Christology. While the Gospel narratives have received the majority of early attention on this subject, Hebrews scholarship has increasingly provided insight into how the author may have utilized heroic language and mythic imagery in the epistle . This paper will show that the author of Hebrews incorporated a portrayal of Jesus as a hero into his Christology. The first part of the paper will review the major steps of scholarship in the study of heroes and Jesus of the New Testament. The second section will offer a summary of the heroic paradigm as derived from classic Hellenistic hero mythology. The final section of the paper will show how the author of Hebrews portrays Christ as a hero in Hebrews 2:5–10."


Rhetoric and the New Testament
1:00 PM to 3:30 PM
Room: W475b - McCormick Place

Ira J. Jolivet, Jr., Pepperdine University
The Polemic Between the Precepts of the Law and the Doctrines of Faith in the Deliberative Argument of Hebrews

"While the number of scholars who use rhetorical insights to analyze Hebrews has increased significantly in recent years, their numbers have not generated a corresponding rise in the level of consensus on specifically rhetorical issues such as the identifications of the document’s structural unity or of the precise rhetorical species to which it conforms. Besides not producing agreement on these types of issues, rhetorical critics have also shed little if any helpful light on other traditionally difficult problems, such as the degree to which Hebrews is a polemic against Judaism or the Mosaic Law. A fundamental premise of this paper is that the inability of rhetorical critics to contribute meaningfully to the analysis of Hebrews is due to the critical mistake of focusing primarily on Aristotelian structural aspects of the speech rather than on its more philosophical characteristics. Because in so doing they ignore the shift due to the influence of the Stoics during the Hellenistic Period in the focus of philosophy from metaphysics to emotional therapy and the simultaneous change in rhetoric from a (techne) as Aristotle had defined it to a science (episteme). The most noticeable effects of these changes can be seen in deliberative oratory, the goal of which for both Aristotle and the Stoics was happiness. But whereas Aristotle had equated this goal with the advantageous (to sumphuton) and had claimed that its acquisition required the possession of both the internal and external goods of the virtues of the soul and of the body, the Stoics insisted that virtue is the only truly good thing it alone is entirely sufficient for happiness. They taught, also, that mistaking mere advantages, which are “indifferents,” for that which is truly good gives rise to the passions, the unstable movements of the soul that if left unchecked harden into sin (hamartia). The Stoics’ philosophical departure from Aristotle is seen in their reclassification of the goal of deliberative rhetoric into three categories: honor (virtue as the summum bonum and the greatest necessity), advantage (indifferents), and things that combine qualities of both honor and advantage. I propose that the perceived polemic in Hebrews between the “good things” of faith and the “weak and ineffectual” law with its “regulations for the body” are indications that its author skillfully crafted a deliberative speech as the remedy for the passions of fear (phobos) and distress (lupe) that threatened the souls of the members of his intended audience who had mistaken the merely advantageous indifferents of the law for the truly good and perfectly virtuous will of God. More specifically, this speech involves the contrast between the precepts (paraineseis) of the law that deal with external indifferents and the doctrines (dogmata, theoremata) of faith that Jesus the exemplar of moral perfection internalized. These doctrines consist of his examples of the virtue of courage, the good emotion (eupatheia) of caution (eulabeia), and confidence and hope, two of the good things “that participate in virtue.”"

David deSilva, Ashland Theological Seminary
The Letter to the Hebrews and Greek Pedagogical Texts

"The so-called Letter "to the Hebrews" is noteworthy among the New Testament writings for its many points of contact with Greek educational theory and practice. This paper explores, first, the connections between the earliest texts of the Progymnasmata (those of Theon and Hermogenes) and Hebrews 12:5-11. The latter provides an example of the pattern of the elaboration of a chreia or thesis taught in the elementary exercises, as well as an example of the creative expansion of a maxim (and a well-known pedagogical maxim at that). The paper goes on to explore connections between Greek comments about education and particular texts in Hebrews regarding suffering as an opportunity for formation and progress through the various levels of eduction on the way to maturity."


4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Room: W183c - McCormick PlaceTheme: The literary, philosophical, and theological content and context of the Book of Hebrews

Ekkehard Stegemann, Universität Basel, Presiding

Jason A. Whitlark, Baylor University
Jesus' Victory over Satan: A Figured Critique of Imperial Power in Hebrews

"Hebrews 1:5-13 celebrates the enthronement of the Son and his victory over his enemies. That victory is articulated in 2:14-15 in apocalyptic terms as victory over the devil who has the power of death and as liberation from the fear of death. In this way, Jesus helps the “seed of Abraham” (2:16) and leads “many sons” to glory (2:10). How might this portrayal of Jesus’ victory have been received by early Christian audiences in the Roman Empire? What I will argue in this paper is that Jesus’ triumphant enthronement upon his victory over the devil in Hebrews represents a figured critique of Roman imperial authority. The critique is twofold. First it correlates Roman power with the devil. I will establish this correlation in two ways. (1) I will examine other New Testament documents and early Christian martyrdom texts that identify persecuting imperial culture and its authorities with the devil. (2) I will examine the notion in Roman imperial discourse that Roman authority was supremely manifested in its power over life and death. Second, as noted by some interpreters of Hebrews, the victory of Jesus is portrayed in these verses in a manner similar to Hercules. Jesus’ Herculean victory is then over Roman authority rendering Roman power unable to enforce ultimate loyalty to its rule because Jesus has liberated Christians from the fear of death. This investigation demonstrates possibly why Hebrews circulated widely among early Christian communities who faced ongoing pressures from their Roman imperial culture. The apocalyptic portrayal of Roman power encourages Christians to resist the pressures of their imperial culture with patient suffering, a steady witness, and bold confidence because of their hope in the victory of the Son."

Gareth Lee Cockerill, Wesley Biblical Seminary
Hebrews 12:18-24: An Example of Apocalyptic Typology or Platonic Dualism?

"This study begins its analysis of the connection between the “Sinai” of Heb 12:18-21 and the “Zion” of 12:22-24 by surveying the various ways in which interpreters of Hebrews have understood this relationship: as a contrast between the old and new religious orders, between the times before and after Christ, or between Judaism and Christianity; as an ineffective foreshadowing of the effective, or, as is asserted by those who affirm a Platonic background for Hebrews, as an earthly copy of the heavenly reality. This paper contends that this passage is concerned neither with a typological relationship between the old and the new nor with a Platonic relationship between earthly and heavenly, copy and reality. The author is not here concerned either with lesser/greater, before/after, type/antitype on the one hand, or with below/above, copy/reality on the other. There is little in this passage that suggests the writer’s primary concern is with an earthly/heavenly distinction and less that would indicate temporal sequence between these two “mountains.” The primary relationship between the two is stark contrast—between exclusion from and access to the presence of God. Other indicators as well, including the rhetorical structure of this “sermon,” suggest that the author presents “Sinai” and “Zion” as two alternatives for the people of God in the present. Through the work of Christ the “Mount” of God’s speaking has become the place of judgment for the apostate (12:18-21) but the “Zion” of fellowship with God for the faithful (12:22-24)."

Kenneth Schenck, Wesley Seminary at Indiana Wesleyan University, Respondent

Amy Peeler, Wheaton College
“My Son, You Are Priest”: The Filial Context of the Cultic Motif in Hebrews

"Interpreters of Hebrews agree that the author constructs the Christology of the letter around two foci: Son and Priest. The relationship between those two foci, however, has elicited a wealth of disagreement. Are these identities separate or integrally related? Does one take precedence over the other? After providing a brief summary of the history of interpretation of these questions, this paper, in conversation with Hebrews’ most recent interpreters, argues both for the close relationship between the two titles and also for the priority of Jesus’ sonship. Although the author’s explication of Jesus’ priesthood, introduced at 2:17, becomes a dominant issue in the central section of the letter (4:14–10:25) and references to aspects associated with it continue until the closing section (12:2, 24; 13:12), the author frequently integrates Jesus’ priesthood with assertions of Jesus’ sonship. The consistent linkage between the familial and the cultic motifs suggests that the familial dynamic between God and Jesus is integral to his status as God’s final High Priest. Moreover, I argue that the author of Hebrews grounds Jesus’ vocation as priest in his filial relationship with God, and he does so in two ways. First, Jesus’ sonship is granted priority because it is the suffering that Jesus experiences as the Son of God, through the will of his Father, that qualifies him for his role as High Priest. Second, the author of Hebrews integrally relates these two roles because Jesus’ priestly offering and his priestly intercession are the means by which Jesus secures the human portion of his own inheritance. The author of Hebrews continues to construct his theological and Christological vision through the familial relationship between God and Jesus, even as he turns to the topic of Christ’s priesthood. God the Father appoints his Son as High Priest by means of suffering so that the Son can provide the inheritance to God’s many sons and daughters. In so doing, the Son attains his inheritance—including the audience of Hebrews themselves—through his priestly service."

Jesper Svartvik, Lund University
The Reception History of Heb. 8.13: A Stumbling Block or a Stepping Stone?

"During the last two millennia no single New Testament text has dictated Jewish-Christian relations more than has the Epistle to the Hebrews. Whereas biblical scholars continue to grapple with the “whence” of Hebrews (i.e., authorship, context, genre, structure, date etc.), no one can be in doubt of its “whither”. This anonymous text of unknown origin, with its tremendously influential metaphors and thoughts, has been at the very centre of Christian theology in at least three respects. (a) First, the author of Hebrews interprets the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth with first-century sacrificial nomenclature: Jesus is being compared to both the high priest who brings forth the sacrifice and the sacrifice being brought forth. He is also compared to the parokhet, the veil which separated the Holy of Holiest from the rest of the Holy. Due to this metaphorical multiplicity, the various images collide. If they are taken too literally, they negate each other: in a literal sense, he cannot be the high priest, the sacrifice, and the parokhet at the same time. (b) Secondly, this epistle played an important role in early Christian debates on whether it was possible for Christians to return to faith after having relapsed. We ought to ask ourselves whether it is a coincidence that Heb., emphasising the one-ness of Jesus’ sacrifice, also wrestles—perhaps more than any other early Christian text—with the question of whether there is forgiveness a second time for sinners. In other words, is there a connection between the emphasis of a sacrificial ephapax (Heb. 9.12) and the once-for-all forgiveness? Is there a correspondence between a daily forgiveness and a discourse of continuing sacrifice? (c) Thirdly, another area of immeasurable influence is the discourse of an “old” and a “new” covenant in the Heilsgeschichte, and that the default setting of much Christian theology when it comes to Jewish-Christian relations is comparative, i.e., that Christianity is “better” than Judaism. This is certainly not isolated exclusively to Jewish-Christian relations, but it is, no doubt, accentuated in an unparalleled way in Jewish-Christian encounters. Few Christians in the pews and in the pulpits would spontaneously argue that Christianity has “fulfilled” Hinduism or “terminated” Buddhism. Those Christians who are critical to other faith traditions are perhaps inclined to state that they are “at fault”, but when it comes to Judaism it is likely that they would assert that Christianity is “better” than Judaism and that Judaism, theologically speaking, has ceased to exist post Christum. In this paper it is argued that no single biblical text has influenced Christians’ understanding of the relation between Jews and Christians more than has Hebrews. Its impact is enormous, and a past without its Wirkungsgeschichte is unimaginable. Subsequent Christological thinking has nourished from Heb., but detrimental models of how to understand Judaism have also profited from this epistle. The paper will explore the role Heb. 8.13 has played and continues to play in shaping the agenda for Jewish-Christian relations."

Craig Koester, Luther Seminary, Respondent

Hindy Najman, Yale University
Heavenly ascent and liturgy in Epistle to the Hebrews and early Jewish Interpretation

"This paper will consider various ways in which heavenly ascent and liturgy are employed to construct new narratives of redemption. Attention to the role of authoritative figures and texts will play a central role."

James Thompson, Abilene Christian University, Respondent



Book of Acts
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: S404d - McCormick Place

Michael B. Cover, University of Notre Dame
Homiletic Exegesis in Acts 2 and Hebrews 3–4

"Both the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb 13:22) and Paul’s speech in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:15) are dubbed logos (tes) parakleseos (“word of exhortation). This titular identification suggests that a comparison of Hebrews and the speeches in Acts might yield important information about the form and content of early Christian homilies. Lawrence Wills has in fact used Paul’s first missionary homily, given on the Sabbath in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:16–41), to create a generic typology for the homiletic genre, which he finds in various Christian and Jewish sources spanning the first and second centuries. The scope of this paper is much more modest. Rather than aiming at such a typology, I will investigate what a comparison of Hebrews and Acts might yield in terms of defining a common pattern of homiletic exegesis. By a pattern of exegesis, I mean especially the way in which an OT pericope guides and structures an interpreter’s exegetical argument. In this paper, I will claim that the homiletic exegesis of LXX Ps 94:7d–11 in Heb 3:7–4:10 sheds considerable light on the form and pattern of Luke’s exegesis of LXX Ps 15:8–11b in Acts 2:25–36. In particular, I argue that LXX Ps 15:11c should be understood as part of the pericope upon which Peter comments, as this best explains the singular dexia in Acts 2:33 (cf. LXX Ps 15:11c). Once this restoration is made, a common pattern of commenting on both the first word and the final verse of a Psalm pericope (as well as sequentially on medial themes) emerges in the both Acts and Hebrews. Luke has followed the pattern of Psalmic interpretation exemplified by Hebrews, even as he has curtailed and stereotyped it according to the conventions of Greco-Roman historiography. The contribution of this study is twofold. On the one hand, it clarifies the exegetical method used in Peter’s speech and reopens old questions about Luke’s use of sources in Acts. On the other hand, it contributes to the ongoing study of early Christian homilies, distinguishing a sequential pattern of exegesis shared by these two texts." 


Joint Session With: Hebrews, Space, Place, and Lived Experience in Antiquity, Sacrifice, Cult, and Atonement
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: E262 - McCormick PlaceTheme: One Sacrificial Body: Yom Kippur and Space in Hebrews
Jason Tatlock, Armstrong Atlantic State University, Presiding

Ellen B. Aitken, McGill University
The Body of Jesus outside the Eternal City: Mapping Ritual Space in the Epistle to the Hebrews

The persuasive strategies of the Epistle to the Hebrews employ metaphors of travel, arrival, and entrance both to describe the work of Jesus in the world (earthly and heavenly) and to encourage its inscribed audience to maintain solidarity with Jesus. The quotation of Ps 40:6-8 on Jesus’ lips in Hebrews 10 announces not only his “arrival” to do God’s will, but also emphasizes the “body prepared” in place of the sacrificial offerings of the Israelite cult. This paper examines the spatial mapping of Hebrews in order to understand the semiotically complex landscape through which Jesus and the audience journey. It attends particularly to the erasure and re-inscribing of meaning within this landscape in relation to patterns of sacrifice, offering, and ritual presence. It argues that the argument of Hebrews places Jesus’ suffering body within this landscape and thus redefines the landscape of meaning through which the audience moves. Building on my earlier work that develops a reading of Hebrews within the cityscape of Flavian Rome, it proposes that Hebrews is thus deploying a conceptual reimagining of the ritual, sacrificial, and monumental space of the city of Rome in order to create a compelling vision of “the city that is to come” (Heb 13.14)."

John Vonder Bruegge, Northwestern College - Orange City, Respondent (15 min)

David M. Moffitt, Campbell University Divinity School
Serving in Heaven’s Temple: Sacred Space, Yom Kippur, and Jesus’ Superior Offering in Hebrews

"Because the Yom Kippur sacrifices included the presentation of blood in the inner sanctum of the Jerusalem temple, movement through space was a constitutive element of the ritual process that effected atonement. The high priest’s physical act of walking into the temple’s first sanctum and passing through the curtain that separated the inner sanctum from the outer one was, therefore, more than a metaphor for drawing near to the presence of God. Rather, in crossing from one sanctum to the other the high priest entered into that sacred earthly space where God’s presence dwelt most fully. Students of the letter to the Hebrews universally recognize the importance of this spatial progression for the epistle’s depiction of Jesus as the heavenly high priest. Few, however, have taken seriously the possibility that Hebrews’ use of this spatial component of Yom Kippur amounts to more than a metaphor for the departure of Jesus’ spirit upon his death from earth into the immaterial presence of God (i.e., heaven). This paper explores just such a possibility. In particular, attention is paid to Jewish and early Christian apocalyptic texts that clearly envision heaven in spatial terms. Texts that imagine a temple in heaven that has its own especially sacred space (as opposed to those that imagine heaven as a temple all of which is equally sacred space) are especially instructive. If such a concept is in play in Hebrews, I argue that three significant implications appear to follow: 1) the epistle cannot be easily interpreted as affirming an essentially Platonic cosmology, 2) the significance of the process of Jewish sacrificial ritual for Hebrews’ understanding of Jesus’ atoning work can be more clearly grasped, and 3) the text does not argue from nor advocate for the assumption that Jesus’ priesthood and sacrifice replace the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices." 


Christian Theology and the Bible
1:00 PM to 3:30 PM
Room: S103d - McCormick PlaceTheme: Reading the Literal Sense of Scripture on Purity and Sacrifice
The is one of three sessions on the literal sense of Scripture hosted by this section

R. Trent Pomplun, Loyola University Maryland
Indestructible Life: the Priesthood of Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews

"The last fifty years has seen an explosion of subtle exegetical treatments of Jesus Christ as a priest of the ‘order of Melchizedek’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This explosion is largely due to the importance of Melchizedek in Second Temple Judaism as witnessed by the mysterious priest’s presence in various fragments from Qumran, especially 11QMelch. The following paper will synthesize recent research on these Melchizedek traditions with recent works on the eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews to offer an exegesis of the ‘single sacrifice for sins’ that Christ offers to perfect the sanctified ‘for all time’ or ‘once and for all.’ The literal sense of Hebrews 10:12-14, however, is among the most elusive of exegetical fauna, for it requires one to explain both the meaning of sacrifice and the ontological conditions that must obtain for a temporal act to be decisive in manner that the author of Hebrews claims. After a brief attempt to do so, this paper will offer a few constructive suggestions for why this literal exegesis is important for theological debates about the sacrifice of the Mass." 


Christian Theology and the Bible
1:00 PM to 3:30 PM
Room: W184d - McCormick PlaceTheme: The Literal Sense of Biblical Texts Addressing Sacrifice and Purity: Theory and Practice
This is one of three sessions addressing the literal sense of Scripture hosted by this section.

Benjamin J. Ribbens, Wheaton College (Illinois)
Levitical Sacrifices in Hebrews: Does Hebrews Violate the Literal Sense of Leviticus?

"When comparing Christ’s sacrifice to the levitical sacrifices, the author of Hebrews makes some critical statements about the old covenant sacrifices that appear to contradict the literal sense of Leviticus. Whereas Leviticus says that sacrifices made atonement and forgave sins, Hebrews argues that the old covenant sacrifices did not cleanse the conscience or take away sins. Such a deliberate contradiction of Leviticus, however, seems to conflict with the author’s commitment to the Septuagint as the very words of God. While Hebrews freely reinterprets the Septuagint in light of the revelation of the Son, it seems unlikely that the author would deliberately contradict the literal sense of Leviticus. Scholars have offered a number of proposals concerning what, according to Hebrews, the old covenant sacrifices accomplished compared to Christ’s sacrifice. These proposals ascribe to the levitical sacrifices a diminished efficacy (a different kind of purification), and they then offer reasons why the author might diminish the significance of the levitical sacrifices. However, each of these proposals must accept to varying degrees the disconcerting conclusion that Hebrews contradicts the literal sense of Leviticus. This paper proposes that John Calvin’s interpretation of Hebrews offers a way forward. According to Calvin, Hebrews considers the levitical sacrifices to be sacramental, Christological types, and by understanding the old covenant sacrifices in this way Hebrews is still able to consider the levitical sacrifices to have achieved atonement and forgiveness of sins. This is a concrete example of how, as Hans Frei notes, Calvin employs figural reading in order to maintain the literal sense of the Old Testament." 


Papyrology and Early Christian Backgrounds
4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Room: W181a - McCormick Place

Renate V. Hood, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor and Sylvie T. Raquel, Trinity International University
If papyri could speak: Insights into the world of early Christianity gained from two unpublished papyri

"This paper will provide new data extracted from translations and reconstructions of two recently acquired, unpublished papyri fragments of Hebrews 9 and 11. A discussion of the condition, physical characteristics, usage, and dates of the papyri (preliminary data suggests that one is from the second century and one from the third century, while awaiting further dating in summer 2012), along with a presentation of scribal features, will provide insight into early (Egyptian) Christian writing practices and religious life. An examination of nomina sacra presented in light of paleographical data will bear significance on the discussion of the origin and function of nomina sacra in early Christianity. Additional observations from a variant in an explicit quotation in Hebrews, while making reference to the assumed LXX Vorlage, and other textual and paleographical data, will likewise illumine the socio-cultural world of the early Jesus followers." 


Sacrifice, Cult, and Atonement
4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Room: S502b - McCormick PlaceTheme: Ritual Dynamics of Defilement and Purification

Daniel P. Bailey, University of Illinois at Chicago
Paradigms of Sacrifice and Atonement: Did the New Testament Authors “Read” Jacob Milgrom and Harmut Gese?

A persistent but often unaddressed question in the study of biblical atonement concerns what use the scholar of the NT and early Judaism should make of his or her readings of the works of modern Hebrew Bible scholars who strive to recapture the original sense and logic of cultic atonement. This paper argues that beyond a greater appreciation of OT texts in their own right, such reading can sharpen historically oriented observation about the NT and early Jewish texts. The principle is illustrated with reference to Jacob Milgrom and Hartmut Gese. First, knowing Milgrom’s theology helps one to appreciate how little it is reflected in early Jewish sources. No known ancient Jewish or early Christian text unambiguously reflects on the significance that the application of sin-offering (hatta’t) blood to holy objects in the sanctuary has for the forgiveness (Leviticus 4) or cleansing (Leviticus 16) of Israelite worshipers. The Temple Scroll says that in the ideal temple the high priest will use the blood of the people’s sin offering on the Day of Atonement to “atone for all the people of the assembly” (11Q19 26:7, 9), but the text does not mention atonement for the sanctuary or the altar (cf. Lev 16:16, 18, 20, 33). The author of Hebrews comes closer to having “read” Milgrom in that he mentions blood on holy objects and forgiveness of persons in close proximity, but the connections are tenuous and must be supplied by the modern reader: “Indeed, under the law almost all things are purified (katharizetai) with blood [including the worship vessels just mentioned in v. 21?], and without the shedding of blood [for sprinkling on these things?] there is no forgiveness of sins [for people]” (Heb. 9:22). The differences between Milgrom and Gese might be summarized by the significance they give to the blood of the hatta’t: blood as “purging” the sanctuary (Milgrom) versus blood as providing symbolic “access” to the sanctuary for the Israelite people as represented by their high priest through his hand-leaning on the animal victim (Gese). Gese-like ideas are found in both Ephesians and Hebrews. Gentile believers are “brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph. 2:13) and thus enjoy an “access” (prosagôgê, 2:18; 3:12) previously accorded only to members of the “commonwealth of Israel” (2:12). This echoes Paul’s idea of Jesus as the new “mercy seat (hilastêron) though faith” (Rom 3:25) with its implication of “access by faith into grace” (Rom 5:2). Similar images of cultically mediated access in Hebrews include “a hope that enters the inner shrine behind the curtain,” where Jesus made his journey for others (Heb. 6:19-20; cf. 9:24); “the entrance (eisodos) into the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus that he opened for us, as a new and living way (hodos) through the curtain” (10:19-20); and an invitation to “approach the throne of grace with confidence” (4:16, possibly alluding to the mercy seat of 9:5). Ultimately the cultic motifs emphasized by Gese are more constitutive for Hebrews than those of Milgrom.

No comments:

Post a Comment